Interesting website
fasgnadh
> Peter Hodges wrote:
> >
> > Anyone interested in the further writings of Keith Windschuttle can
> > read a number of articles by him at:
> > <www.sydneyline.com>
> >
> WHY are you doing propaganda for this discredited 'historian'??
Doesn't Ned and his Taliban cronies have a history of rejecting
any nominations of Indigenous Australians for consideration for
inclusion as true-blues?
Hasn't Ned opposed any positive mention of aborigiginal figures
from Cathy Freeman to Charles Perkins? Doesn't he, and his mates
Duguid and Mosley, frequently pen attacks on indigenous and
ethnic groups?
Didn't they even oppose the campaign to get a fair go for
aboriginals in the bush who had their water supply cut off
by forces close to Howards replacement for Pat Dodson?
Isn't their website a cultural front for attacks on tolerant
aussie multiculturalism?
Wasn't it Ned's running mate for Lord High Protector of
a NG who had never even heard of Nino Cullotta?
There's your answer mate, they don't like bleks or migrants.
except themselves and their migrant ancestors.
That's why the ONLY Aussie 'history' Ned has ever shown any
interest in is Windshuffles revisionism, because the Establishment
doesn't want the indigenous minority to have their history told.
Isn't Ned the Idiot who thinks the Spartan Oligarchy 404 BCE
is a 'better working model' than our pluralist democracy,
(not surprising for a dolt who posts to Usenet posing as
a Unix guru and asking for help to get the top off his computer! B^)
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > Peter Hodges wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone interested in the further writings of Keith Windschuttle can
> > > read a number of articles by him at:
> > > <www.sydneyline.com>
> > >
> > WHY are you doing propaganda for this discredited 'historian'??
>
> Doesn't Ned and his Taliban cronies
There's no such group, you lying snake.
> have a history of rejecting
> any nominations of Indigenous Australians for consideration for
> inclusion as true-blues?
No. I do not liar. I have spoken against the inclusion in the act-b
"Hall of Fame" of people who are already featured on numerous webstites
(Freeman), who are mainstreamers (Freeman), media darlings (Freeman),
racists (Perkins) or wannabe terrorists (Perkins).
> Hasn't Ned opposed any positive mention of aborigiginal figures
> from Cathy Freeman to Charles Perkins?
No. See above. I have contested your lies about them though.
> Doesn't he, and his mates
> Duguid and Mosley, frequently pen attacks on indigenous and
> ethnic groups?
Do feel free to post something you think might pass as evidence that
I have ever attacked any indigenous or ethnic group, you lying skank.
----snip----
> Isn't Ned the Idiot who thinks the Spartan Oligarchy 404 BCE
> is a 'better working model' than our pluralist democracy,
No, you moron. I'm not.
And there is no such thing as "our pluralist democracy". Our system
is an elective oligarchy.
"Oligarchy", of course, being the reason you love it so much.
----snip----
Ned
--
The aus.culture.true-blue Website
http://www.aussie-culture.net
FAQ: http://www.aussie-culture.net/faq.html
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.
Seppo Renfors
fasgnadh wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message news:<3C99EF2F...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> > Peter Hodges wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyone interested in the further writings of Keith Windschuttle can
> > > read a number of articles by him at:
> > > <www.sydneyline.com>
> > >
> > WHY are you doing propaganda for this discredited 'historian'??
>
> Doesn't Ned and his Taliban cronies have a history of rejecting
> any nominations of Indigenous Australians for consideration for
> inclusion as true-blues?
...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
>
> Hasn't Ned opposed any positive mention of aborigiginal figures
> from Cathy Freeman to Charles Perkins? Doesn't he, and his mates
> Duguid and Mosley, frequently pen attacks on indigenous and
> ethnic groups?
...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
>
> Didn't they even oppose the campaign to get a fair go for
> aboriginals in the bush who had their water supply cut off
> by forces close to Howards replacement for Pat Dodson?
...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
>
[..]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Latham
> fasgnadh wrote:
----snip----
> > Doesn't Ned and his Taliban cronies have a history of rejecting
> > any nominations of Indigenous Australians for consideration for
> > inclusion as true-blues?
>
> ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
Which is to say, not at all.
----snip----
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, the meathead who thinks repetition will make his lies
come true.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors <Sen...@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message news:<3C99EF2F...@not.ollis.com.au>...
> > > Peter Hodges wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anyone interested in the further writings of Keith Windschuttle can
> > > > read a number of articles by him at:
> > > > <www.sydneyline.com>
> > > >
> > > WHY are you doing propaganda for this discredited 'historian'??
> >
> > Doesn't Ned and his Taliban cronies have a history of rejecting
> > any nominations of Indigenous Australians for consideration for
> > inclusion as true-blues?
>
> ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
It is that SELECTIVE approach, based on bias which reveals
their latent, or even blatant, race based ideology.
> >
> > Hasn't Ned opposed any positive mention of aborigiginal figures
> > from Cathy Freeman to Charles Perkins? Doesn't he, and his mates
> > Duguid and Mosley, frequently pen attacks on indigenous and
> > ethnic groups?
>
> ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
Serious and respected historians like Reynolds survey the
primary sources and produce informed judgements, which those
like Rebecca, who operate from a political bias disparage
as 'guesses' and even compare to asking their neighbours
for an impromptu, uninformed, opinion.
Makes their pretence at 'history' pretty amusing. B^D
> >
> > Didn't they even oppose the campaign to get a fair go for
> > aboriginals in the bush who had their water supply cut off
> > by forces close to Howards replacement for Pat Dodson?
>
> ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
Pretty much the same modus operandi: Selective treatment of the data,
opinion based on their political bias, character assasination,
and relying on the judgement of Nellie the Neighbour who knows
less about anything than htey do! B^D
> >
> [..]
A small example suffices to demonstrate the personal attacks,
the distortions based on trying to make the data fit their
preconceptions and prejudices, and admission that objective
review of evidence is not their goal, but that they have 'a side'
to support:
"Nevertheless, despite Henry Reynolds' fantasies, [1] it is clear
that these were small-scale raids. They most certainly didn't amount
to "guerilla warfare", [2]
and I posted this information from Margaret Kiddle because I think it
supports Keith Windschuttle against Henry Reynolds. [3]
1. Where has Rebecca posted any evidence of 'fantasies' by
Henry Reynolds? To date all we have is that what he himself
described as an estimate (based on wide research of primary
sources),
the politically correct denigrate as a guess (Rebecca sees
no difference between an estimate informed by research and
review of the evidence, and asking her neighbours impromptu
'opinion' 8^0 How can you take these politically motivated
W.A.P. supporters seriously?
She is just doing another Heffernan/Windsuffle
slander of a historian who's boots she is not worthy to lick.
With similar damage to her, not his, reputation! B^)
[2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? B^p
What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? B^D
[3] Then she makes clear the reason for this biased and distorted
treatment, her purpose is not historical analysis, but PARTISAN
SUPPORT OF WINDSHUTTLES POSITION.
"I posted this information from Margaret Kiddle because I think it
supports Keith Windschuttle against Henry Reynolds."
ie, she isn't doing what a genuine historian does, review the evidence
and come to an informed judgement (she disparages this, calling
it a 'guess' B^p ) Instead, she has a political objective,
and looks for material to support her bias, twisting it to suit.
[see also pt 2. above ]
Ned Latham
----snip----
> [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now? ROTFL! You'd better write
an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Che Guano: "Guerilla Warfare for Focaccio Fondlers".
> What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? =*=
She probably takes the rather sensible view that warfare is about
*defeating* the enemy rather than getting up his nose.
----snip----
fasgnadh
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
>
> Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
No, but it was then.
"According to the Geelong Advertiser (from which Kiddle quotes, and to which
I think I referred in my original post), in separate incidents over a
two-month period they reportedly took 200 sheep from a Mr Campbell, 600
sheep from Mr Loughnan, 200 sheep from Mr Muston, 30 sheep from Messrs Kemp,
50 sheep from Mr Farie, 350 sheep from Capt. Webster, 50 sheep from Mr
Black, 260 sheep from Mr Thompson, 300 sheep from Mr Gill, 700 sheep from Mr
Cameron (but mostly recovered), 180 sheep from Mr Bromfield, 350 sheep from
Mr Aylman, and 450 sheep from Mr Barnet.
In several of these depradations they also killed isolated shepherds."
" During the last four or five years the human life and property destroyed
by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount..
settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
> ROTFL!
Dead shepherds is funny to you?
Trust Ned to laugh at the death of early settlers
> You'd better write
> an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book,
You would be too busy revelling in your own ignorance to
understand it.
> > What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? B^p
>
> She probably takes the rather sensible view that warfare is about
> *defeating* the enemy rather than getting up his nose.
So, military genius, you can't succesfully attack them in battle,
because they have fire sticks that kill at a distance.
What would you do to 'defeat the enemy'?
Guerilla warfare directed at his survival? B^p
"considering the advantages posessed by the Europeans, Aboriginal
resistance was surprisingly prolonged and effective, extracting a high price
from many pioneer communities in tension and insecurity as much as in
property loss, injury or death.
Aboriginal attacks on property had devastating effects on the fortunes of
individual settlers, and at times appeared to threaten the economic
viability of pioneer industries - squatting, farming, mining and pearling"
- Henry Reynolds "The breaking of the Great Australian Silence:
Aborigines in Australian Historiography 1955-1983" p 15.
University of London, 1984
Neville Duguid
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
>
> Pretty much the same modus operandi: Selective treatment of the data,
> opinion based on their political bias, character assasination,
> and relying on the judgement of Nellie the Neighbour who knows
> less about anything than htey do! B^D
Oops, there goes Oral History. I am sure Keith Windschuttle will
appreciate your unexpected support with that one, Peter.
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
True Blue Aussie Web Site * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
http://www.aussie-culture.net * who disagrees with them should not." *
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
> >
> > Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
>
> No, but it was then.
Rubbish. "They took" sheep isn't warfare, it's hunting. If they'd been
attacking the grazier's economic viability, they wouldn't have bothered
taking the carcasses away, and the reports would have read "killed" or
"destroyed".
As to the numbers: could the graziers possibly have been exaggerating
their losses in order to provoke retaliatory action by the authorities
or excuse their own actions?
Waddya reckon, flunky? Do you think your establishment masters would
behave like that?
----snip----
> > ROTFL!
> * Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now? ROTFL! You'd better write
> * an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
(Text restored at this point with the mangled text left intact above it
to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Dead shepherds is funny to you?
>
> Trust Ned to laugh at the death of early settlers
Trust Guano to resort to misrepresentation and lies.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > >
> > > ...in like manner as Keith Windschuttle does Aussie history.
> >
> > Pretty much the same modus operandi: Selective treatment of the data,
> > opinion based on their political bias, character assasination,
> > and relying on the judgement of Nellie the Neighbour who knows
> > less about anything than htey do! B^D
>
> Oops, there goes Oral History.
Nev, thanks for telling us that your version of Oral history is to
ask some dolt WHO WASN'T THERE, what their opinion is,
and then treat it as an EYEWITNESS account!
ROFLMAO
> I am sure Keith Windschuttle will
> appreciate your unexpected support with that one, Peter.
And as with Rebecca, Ned self-reveals that he is not interested
in an objective analysis of the data in order to form an informed
judgement (Reynolds/ Fagnath/ et al) but has a pre-determined
axe to grind, and as with Rebecca, it's the W.A.P. axe. B^p
Mark Addinall
> in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
>
Noddy is now a military expurt. This should provide
some laughs. No never did tell us how you *avoided*
military service heh noddy?
> Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
Now and then. If you would bother to read any history
you will discover that the early settlers of the Spanish
land Australia had a very tenous grasp on life.
Most of the colony starving to death and beggared help
from the Dutch East Indies for rations just to survive.
You should read the book "Arriving" The settlement of Victoria.
It details rather well the war staged against the settlers by
the then land owners. The transportation of sheep from Vic
inland to the coast and to SA was blocked by guerrilla war
action for many years.
> ROTFL!
Instead of giggling to yourself, go read a book. The lid comes
off rather easily.
> You'd better write
> an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
Like it or not; at the time you were *avoiding* service,
that little book and the philosophy of the author managed
to kick Britan, France, the USA and Australian troops
out of SE Asia.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Che Guano: "Guerilla Warfare for Focaccio Fondlers".
>
> > What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? =*=
>
> She probably takes the rather sensible view that warfare is about
> *defeating* the enemy rather than getting up his nose.
You really don't know much about anything do you noddy?
Mark Addinall.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
Ferdie
sounds like the same crap as "Going Home"
Ferdie
or was it "bring em back" or something ?
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
Taking sheep is guerrilla warfare now? ROTFL! You'd better write
an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
I can see the section headings now.
Lamb with Black Bean Sauce.
Satay Lamb.
Szechuan Lamb.
Lamb with Vegetable.
Lamb with Oyster Sauce.
Mongolian Lamb.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
> >
> * an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
Text restored above. Now look below at what Guano did with part of it.
You can check it all at Google using the message IDs quoted in the
attribution lines.
----snip----
> > ROTFL!
>
> Dead shepherds is funny to you?
>
> Trust Ned to laugh at the death of early settlers
Guano asks you to trust his allegations, and calls demands for evidence
a troll trick.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> Nev, thanks for telling us that your version of Oral history is to
> ask some dolt WHO WASN'T THERE, what their opinion is,
> and then treat it as an EYEWITNESS account!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
That's pretty close to a description of Reynolds's idea of *written*
history! He revealed that his source for the battle of Pinjarra was
the diary of a man who wasn't there. He was a friend of the Governor,
who told him about it.
You credit that, and you deny the evidence of the Captain, who "wrote
his diary on the spot".
Your ideology's showing, Guano.
----snip----
> And as with Rebecca, Ned self-reveals that he is not interested
> in an objective analysis of the data in order to form an informed
> judgement (Reynolds/ Fagnath/ et al)
Do feel free to give us the relevant message ID, liar.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
> >
>
> Noddy is now a military expurt.
As if a moron like you would know.
----snip----
> > You'd better write an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
>
> Like it or not; at the time you were *avoiding* service,
Do feel free to post something you think might pass as evidence of that,
you cowardly lying piece of filth.
Seppo Renfors
Windsuffle isn't a "historian", he was a history TEACHER in a school.
>
> [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? B^p
> What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? B^D
There has been such in WA. It was on telly yesterday. Also this site
may well help to figure out the "why".
http://www.omen.net.au/~staffy/pinjar01.html
"This clearly demonstrating that the colonists were ignorant of the
Aboriginal custom of reciprocity, their lands, flora and fauna were
being used by the settlers, it was reasonable to take what was deemed
appropriate by the giver."
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s277827.htm
This is worth a read! Windsuffle has the tactics of the more common
Redneck in here (both groups)!! The man is a complete noong!
Henry Reynolds:
"That nothing was worse than an ongoing small-scale, continuing
guerrilla warfare."
(Windschuttle stuffs up with his knowledge claiming a person "Noonan"
was sought, when it was the Bindjareb Nyoongar warrior Calyute they
were after according to the first site)
http://www.peel.ecommunity.com.au/wppuser/ecommur/history/pinjarra.html
>
> [3] Then she makes clear the reason for this biased and distorted
> treatment, her purpose is not historical analysis, but PARTISAN
> SUPPORT OF WINDSHUTTLES POSITION.
>
> "I posted this information from Margaret Kiddle because I think it
> supports Keith Windschuttle against Henry Reynolds."
>
> ie, she isn't doing what a genuine historian does, review the evidence
> and come to an informed judgement (she disparages this, calling
> it a 'guess' B^p ) Instead, she has a political objective,
> and looks for material to support her bias, twisting it to suit.
> [see also pt 2. above ]
Well, the gender-bender would. It is also a "White King" groupie after
all.
fasgnadh
> nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9oc6e....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> > in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
> >
>
> Noddy is now a military expurt. This should provide
> some laughs. No never did tell us how you *avoided*
> military service heh noddy?
>
> > Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
>
> Now and then.
I wonder if he takes the same view of crop burning,
well poisoning, and scorched earth, the early equivalents
of blowing up bridges and destroying railway lines.
The principles of geurilla warfare are simple;
avoid direct contact with superior forces, unless
you can strike and fade away, and disrupt their
economy and society by any and all means possible.
I suspect that Ned just can't grasp the role of
sheep in a pastoral economy.
Perhaps he's a New Zealander and sees it more
as doing a Peter Carey on the settlers? B^p
> If you would bother to read any history
> you will discover that the early settlers of the Spanish
> land Australia had a very tenous grasp on life.
> Most of the colony starving to death and beggared help
> from the Dutch East Indies for rations just to survive.
>
> You should read the book "Arriving" The settlement of Victoria.
> It details rather well the war staged against the settlers by
> the then land owners. The transportation of sheep from Vic
> inland to the coast and to SA was blocked by guerrilla war
> action for many years.
I did try and introduce him to the concept "BOOK"
with a small taste of the sub genre "paragraph"
which I thought he might be capable of digesting:
" During the last four or five years the human life and property
destroyed by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount..
settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
Unfortunately it contained the secret spice "Uncomfortable Truth"
which Ned has an allergy to, and it caused him to gag,
and spew bile over his next dozen posts.
>
>
> > ROTFL!
>
> Instead of giggling to yourself, go read a book. The lid comes
> off rather easily.
B^D
Oh, that is funny!
>
>
> > You'd better write
> > an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
>
> Like it or not; at the time you were *avoiding* service,
> that little book and the philosophy of the author managed
> to kick Britan, France, the USA and Australian troops
> out of SE Asia.
"Every pig is a fertilizer Factory" - Mao Tse Tung
"Every Sheep is weeks food, a warm sheepskin,
bone for tools, sinew for binding, and destroys
the pastoral economy" - Che Guntidjmara ;-)
>
>
>
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Che Guano: "Guerilla Warfare for Focaccio Fondlers".
> >
> > > What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? =*=
> >
> > She probably takes the rather sensible view that warfare is about
> > *defeating* the enemy rather than getting up his nose.
>
> You really don't know much about anything do you noddy?
He claims to have telepathic knowledge of 'voices' in
other peoples heads. (He certainly spends a lot of time
outside his own).
He's also rather fond of classical Greece's denial of citizenship
to women and slaves. I hear he even tried to implement
it in place of true-blue freedoms in the a.c.t-b NG.
fasgnadh
> > sounds like the same crap as "Going Home"
>
> or was it "bring em back" or something ?
Those letters on the front and spine of the book are
called "The Title"
Perhaps you should only borrow one at a time,
three books seem to be testing your numeracy skills
before you have come to terms with literacy.
pick one with lots of pictures
try not to spend too much time re-arranging
them on the shelf, or making tents with them.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> Well, the gender-bender would. It is also a "White King" groupie
> after all.
>
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
Says Seppo Renfors, liar, forger, self-confessed nazi, and all-round
shatterbrain.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> He's also rather fond of classical Greece's denial of citizenship
> to women and slaves.
Wrong again, liar. I'm very partial to classical Athens's admittance
of working class people into full partnership in thr affairs of state.
Unlike you establishment flunkies, I also despise the bullshit of
modern so-called democracies denying working class people partnership
in the affairs of state.
> I hear he even tried to implement
> it in place of true-blue freedoms in the a.c.t-b NG.
If that's true, your hearing is as defective as your cognition.
Not that it's credible. You are, after all, a pathological liar.
Ned Latham
----batshit snipped----
Oops. That left nothing again. Oh well, have a pome:
Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
Ferdie
You should stop drinking so early in the morning.
fasgnadh
he has begun the long path to redemption; he has admitted
his many deficiencies, sicknesses, and problems:
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9rrio....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
snip to the chase
>
> Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
Now that your admitting your problems, Ned, the doctors are really glad! B^D
> All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
but your plan to take ober aus culture true-blue was the worst you ever had! B^D
> Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
"Everyone", "everywhere" hates you Ned, you are venomous, vile and quite mad.
> Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
Giving you stick, and making you blue, makes the true-blues feel glad!
>
> Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
It's true you are widely despised, why don't you just pack up and go! B^)
> And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
You slanderous troll, we whip you with TRUTH, now take your sockpuppets and blow!
> Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
You can't open up your computer, a reliable source told us so! B^p
> Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
You have always looked up to snakes bellies, there isn't much lower to go!
>
> Ned
No need to sign your autobiographical work,
we could all pick you from the descriptions! B^D
Ferdie
> he has begun the long path to redemption; he has admitted
> his many deficiencies, sicknesses, and problems:
jesus - fagarse
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> he has begun the long path to redemption; he has admitted
> his many deficiencies, sicknesses, and problems:
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You walked right into it, Guano. That poem names your latest alias,
"fasgnadh". Take a look at the first letter on each line.
F ool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
A ll of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
S omebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
G iving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
N obody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
A nd slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
D espite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
H eaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
Can you see it now, chucklehead?
Chuckle, chuckle.
----footshooting fuckup snipped----
fasgnadh
> Hey fagarse,
Oh, Ned is visiting at your place!
I'd ask you to send my regards, but for him I have none,
and you two sound like you are up to something,
each others proatrate by the sounds of it. B^D
> You should stop drinking so early in the morning.
Nah, I love a cuppa while the Magpies carol.
You should learn about these book things,
then you could get a job and buy tea and flour
instea ogf selling your arse on street corners.
You could then also help Ned get the top off his computer
and help explain basic English to him, words he is unfamiliar
with like;
Better
working
system
Multicultural
Democracy
Slave
Universal Franchise
integrity
clue
Scott Hillard
> > sounds like the same crap as "Going Home"
>
> or was it "bring em back" or something ?
"There and back again".
Whoops - that was "The Hobbit", another faery tale.
Ned Latham
> "Ferdie" wrote:
> >
> > Hey fagarse,
>
> Oh, Ned is visiting at your place!
BWAHAHAHA! You worried about more conpiracies against you, Guano?
Better check in with your god thing about that.
Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
ROTFL!
fasgnadh
Ned may think he's Jesus, he may even have you convinced,
but we know the explanation for your smoking arse is not
due to supernatural entities.
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9rrio....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
snip to the chase
>
> Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
Now that your admitting your problems, Ned, the doctors are really glad! B^D
> All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
but your plan to take ober aus culture true-blue was the worst you ever had! B^D
> Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
"Everyone", "everywhere" hates you Ned, you are venomous, vile and quite mad.
> Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
Giving you stick, and making you blue, makes the true-blues feel glad!
>
> Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
It's true you are widely despised, why don't you just pack up and go! B^)
> And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
You slanderous troll, we whip you with TRUTH, now take your sockpuppets and blow!
> Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
You can't open up your computer, a reliable source told us so! B^p
> Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
You have always looked up to snakes bellies, there isn't much lower to go!
>
> Ned
No need to sign your autobiographical work,
we could all pick you from the descriptions! B^D
And your Acronym obsessions!
Ned Latham
> "Ferdie" wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > >
> > > Ned's first person confession in poetic form indicates
> > > he has begun the long path to redemption; he has admitted
> > > his many deficiencies, sicknesses, and problems:
> >
> > jesus - fagarse
>
> Ned may think he's Jesus,
I may, but I won't. I don't have your delusional proclivities.
I also don't have your abysmal stupidity. How's it feel to be so
far outclassed, moron?
Here: read the poem again, you semiliterate bozo. Don't forget to
check the first letter of each line, dummy: you don't want to miss
reading your new alias, now, do you?
ROTFL!
F ool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
A ll of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
S omebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
G iving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
N obody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
A nd slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
D espite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
H eaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
----footshooting fuckup snipped----
How do you like your eggs, Guano? Scrambled, like your brain?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Ferdie
>
> Ned may think he's Jesus, he may even have you convinced,
> but we know the explanation for your smoking arse is not
> due to supernatural entities.
Dont get too excited
http://www.goatse.cx/
fasgnadh
Why would any decent true-blue be excited by your self portrait?
You shouldn't expect normal people to share your perverse pleasures.
We already knew you were a complete arse, reamed by your establishment
puppet masters.
NOW GET YOUR FILTH OUT OF aus.culture.true-blue, because you
make the fair dinkum true-blues vomit, even if the Taliban
Hypocrites; Ned, Nev and Rebekkka are rooting for you,
as your coming out party snap clearly shows! B^P
Someone has to tell you where to get off, because those
moral maggots only ever DEFEND nazi's, racists and sexual
perverts like you, just as they condemn people who tell you where to go!
The Townsville Taliban will never raise a peep of protest, as
in the past when they always allied themselves with Agora, Mosley,
and that bloke who chatted up kids in nudist NG's
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> > Dont get too excited
> > http://www.goatse.cx/
>
> Why would any decent true-blue be excited by your self portrait?
He was talking to you, slimeball, not to a True Blue.
----snip----
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > fasgnadh wrote:
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > >
> > > Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
> >
>
> Rubbish. "They took" sheep isn't warfare, it's hunting. If they'd been
> attacking the grazier's economic viability, they wouldn't have bothered
> taking the carcasses away, and the reports would have read "killed" or
> "destroyed".
The Impact
Aborignal attack was a serious hazard for frontier settlers. Some
were financially ruined. An early Victorian settler, David Waugh,
wrote to the government in 1840 describing how local Aborigines
had ransacked his station and had driven him into bankruptcy:
PAPERS RELATIVE TO THE ABORIGINES:
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES, BPP, 1844, PP. 114-16.
"On his return from Melbourne, he learned that the blacks had
visited the station in his absence , murdered the two men in charge
of the sheep, most of which they had carried away, plundered the
head station of almost everything valuable and compelled the two
men in charge of it to entirely abandon it.
The loss which the petitioner sustained upon this occasion is so
great as to exhaust all he has acquired during the six years he
has been in in the colony, and near to entirely ruin him in his prospects.
LIST OF ARTICLES taken by the Blacks from the station
Of D.I. Waugh, on the Delatite or Devils River
Sheep destroyed or died from wounds:
Ewes in Lamb ............. 490
Rams ..................... 18
Wethers .................. 30
Lambs, about ............. 100
-------
638 "
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> > > > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution lines undone.)
> > > > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? B^D
> > > >
> > > > Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
> > >
> > > No, but it was then.
> >
> > Rubbish. "They took" sheep isn't warfare, it's hunting. If they'd been
> > attacking the grazier's economic viability, they wouldn't have bothered
> > taking the carcasses away, and the reports would have read "killed" or
> > "destroyed".
>
> The Impact
>
> Aborignal attack was a serious hazard for frontier settlers. Some
> were financially ruined. An early Victorian settler, David Waugh,
> wrote to the government in 1840 describing how local Aborigines
> had ransacked his station and had driven him into bankruptcy:
How sad. A squatter who was too busy (chasing floozies?) in Melbourne
to look after his affairs at the station has a sook to the government,
demanding that they bail him out.
Now where else have we heard about rich folks whining for the goverment
to help them out?
> PAPERS RELATIVE TO THE ABORIGINES:
> AUSTRALIAN COLONIES, BPP, 1844, PP. 114-16.
>
> "On his return from Melbourne, he learned that the blacks had
> visited the station in his absence, murdered the two men in charge
> of the sheep, most of which they had carried away, plundered the
> head station of almost everything valuable and compelled the two
> men in charge of it to entirely abandon it.
So. "Most of" the sheep were "carried away" and the station plundered.
Sounds more like grabbing sustenance than guerilla warfare.
BTW, if "most of" the sheep were "carried away", how come Waugh had
638 sheep left for the tally below?
> The loss which the petitioner sustained upon this occasion is so
> great as to exhaust all he has acquired during the six years he
> has been in in the colony, and near to entirely ruin him in his
> prospects.
>
> LIST OF ARTICLES taken by the Blacks from the station
> Of D.I. Waugh, on the Delatite or Devils River
>
> Sheep destroyed or died from wounds:
>
> Ewes in Lamb ............. 490
> Rams ..................... 18
> Wethers .................. 30
> Lambs, about ............. 100
> -------
> 638 "
There are just two problems with this tally, Guano. "Ewes in lamb"
plus "lambs" implies that the tally covers some longish period.
Perhaps the full six years?
Secondly, in view of the Aborigines' hunting practices, what do you
think "died from wounds" implies?
After your frantic three-day search for documents that listed sheep as
"killed" or "destroyed" rather than "taken", this one flawed document
doesn't cut it, Guano. You haven't even come close to demonstrating
guerilla warfare.
And that's without even canvassing the very likely possibility that the
whinger was exaggerating anyway.
Ferdie
With a name like fagarse, its self evident.
fasgnadh
> > Why would any decent true-blue be excited by your self portrait?
>
> With a name like fagarse, its self evident.
So did your Dad give you that name as well as the smoking arse?
Who took the photo? your mum?
What a filthy pervert you are, no wonder Ned likes you;
_______________________________
From: "Ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting website
Message-ID: <ylTn8.1169$Go6.1...@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:06:41 +1100
> > jesus - fagarse
>
> Ned may think he's Jesus, he may even have you convinced,
> but we know the explanation for your smoking arse is not
> due to supernatural entities.
Dont get too excited
http://www.goatse.cx/
_______________________
Have you tried to cut down to less than two packs a day? it looks
like you have pokers cough and may soon develop colon cancer.
Perhaps you should ask Ned not to insert his whole head,
just the pointy bit at the top? B^p
Ferdie
word ?
Ned is obviously tolerant of my sexual preference
fasgnadh
> You're homophobic
Because I object to you posting personal ads containing
perverted graphics of your well reamed anus into a NG children
might access? And Ned backs you to the well worn hilt?
Hardly, 'homophobic', sweetie, for all we know the
very visible damage was done by a horse!
B^p
Stupid perverted twonk!
> - racist
Huh? I thought your arse looked white(and red), are you saying you
have been doing it with a race other than the human one?
Get thee to a knackery!
> - bigoted -
I admit i have a complete prejudice against pedophiles, beastie
boys, child stalkers and other sick perverts like you.
Stick with Ned and the other lowlife of the townsville Taliban
where you will be made welcome.
> um, what's that other stupid lefty word ?
Decency.
No point asking Ned, he's never heard of it either.
> Ned is obviously tolerant of my sexual preference
We could tell that by his glowing defence of you
posting perverted graphics of your glowing arsehole
in a NG children have accces to.
No one minds what you two do in private, or with your pets,
(except perhaps the RSPCA because it's cruel to inflict
STD's on poor dumb animals) but you have no right
to seek converts to your lifestyle in environments where
underage children have access!
This is not the first time Ned has defended an adult
involved in such despicable behaviour, in the past it was
soliciting involvement of underage kids into covert
naked activities with adults.
More for the growing police file.
>
>
> > What a filthy pervert you are, no wonder Ned likes you;
Like attrating like?
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > You're homophobic
>
> Because I object to you posting personal ads containing
> perverted graphics of your well reamed anus into a NG children
> might access?
Quit the posturing, you freak. You set the tone of this newsgroup.
----snip----
> This is not the first time Ned has defended an adult
> involved in such despicable behaviour, in the past it was
> soliciting involvement of underage kids into covert
> naked activities with adults.
It's not the first time, because I've never done such. Not that
the truth will ever prevent Guano from spouting his garbage. It's
the only way he can create an illusion for himself of giving
someone stick.
> More for the growing police file.
So dob me in, you lying snake. I dare you.
----snip----
Tristan Ewins
You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than this at
Easter of all times.
Most people know better than to heed this kind of bile.
Most of us know that - if we must judge someone - it ought be from our own
experiences - not hearsay.
That said, I don't think there are many of us here in a position to judge,
Ned - whatever he stands for.
Rather, we will simply have to take our time, read his posts, and slowly
come to our own conclusions.
On the other hand, the fellow who is stirring up all the trouble he has made
it clear what kind of person he is.
Tristan
Ferdie
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > He's also rather fond of classical Greece's denial of citizenship
> > to women and slaves.
>
> Wrong again, liar.
Asked to nominate a 'better working system' than
our parliamentary democracy, Ned nominated a period
when women and slaves, more than half the population,
were denied citizenship rights and could not vote.
And that was the at its best, at its worst, the period Ned
nominated included the Spartan Oligarchy.
He's a political wierdo:
______________________
From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
Subject: Re: I need an aussie flag photo
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-13 06:12:14 PST
fasgnadh wrote
in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Dave Godwin wrote:
> > > "Aussieplayer" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking for a photo of the flag flying proudly... Anybody got one
> > > > or can point to one online.... Prefferably high quality....
> > >
> > > G'day mate,
> > >
> > > Here's some choices;
> > >
> > > Where it flies most proudly, over our parliament,
> > > the best working system of government yet devised by man:
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Then point to a better working system.
>
> (Not more of Ned's armchair general theories!
> We are talking PRACTICAL!)
Ancient Athens, c. 500 BCE - c. 340 BCE.
________________________________
> I'm very partial to classical Athens's admittance
> of working class people
as slaves?
We know you establishment flunkies hate the working people,
but the idea of advocating a system where many of them
are condemmned to SLAVERY, is appalling bastadry, even for you.
> into full partnership in thr affairs of state.
You idiot, the slave workers did not even have BASIC
citizenship rights, and could not vote!
God help the working people who are sucked in by your
posturing without knowing you would make slaves of them.
> Unlike you establishment flunkies,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAAHHAAAAAAA!
The man who wants women to be disenfranchised as they
were for thousands of years, as they were in his 'preferred system',
and prefers the lowest class of workers to be SLAVES, is clearly
an elitest establishment tool.
Those of us who advocate modern democracy, with universal franchise,
oppose such profoundly undemocratic, 'neo-fascist' tendencies.
> I also despise the bullshit of
> modern so-called democracies
We noticed that, you elitist tool. Can't survive without slaves
to dress you and wipe your arse, eh?
> denying working class people partnership
> in the affairs of state.
A vote is a long way better than the slavery you advocate,
and the oppression of women.
>
> > I hear he even tried to implement
> > it in place of true-blue freedoms in the a.c.t-b NG.
>
> If that's true, your hearing is as defective as your cognition.
So you are now so ashamed of your attempt to sieze control
over what could be posted in your famous, failed,
moderation proposal, that you now deny it! B^D
Good, your grovelling humiliation is complete! ROFLMAO!
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
- The Townsville Taliban's Sacred Creed
They mouthed the words, but betrayed the deed
The rest of that post was so amusing it deserves a reprise: ;-)
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Interesting website
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View: Complete Thread (43 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2002-03-24 06:09:04 PST
madd...@iprimus.com.au (Mark Addinall) wrote in message news:<82e090da.02032...@posting.google.com>...
> nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9oc6e....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
> > fasgnadh wrote
> > in <9617651d.0203...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > [2] She quotes copious evidence that depradations on settler
> > > stock was on a scale exceeding hunting requirements, but then
> > > claims that it's NOT guerilla warfare!? =*=
> >
>
> Noddy is now a military expurt. This should provide
> some laughs. No never did tell us how you *avoided*
> military service heh noddy?
>
> > Killing sheep is guerrilla warfare now?
>
> Now and then.
I wonder if he takes the same view of crop burning,
well poisoning, and scorched earth, the early equivalents
of blowing up bridges and destroying railway lines.
The principles of geurilla warfare are simple;
avoid direct contact with superior forces, unless
you can strike and fade away, and disrupt their
economy and society by any and all means possible.
I suspect that Ned just can't grasp the role of
sheep in a pastoral economy.
Perhaps he's a New Zealander and sees it more
as doing a Peter Carey on the settlers? B^p
> If you would bother to read any history
> you will discover that the early settlers of the Spanish
> land Australia had a very tenous grasp on life.
> Most of the colony starving to death and beggared help
> from the Dutch East Indies for rations just to survive.
>
> You should read the book "Arriving" The settlement of Victoria.
> It details rather well the war staged against the settlers by
> the then land owners. The transportation of sheep from Vic
> inland to the coast and to SA was blocked by guerrilla war
> action for many years.
I did try and introduce him to the concept "BOOK"
with a small taste of the sub genre "paragraph"
which I thought he might be capable of digesting:
" During the last four or five years the human life and property
destroyed by the aboriginals in the North totals up to a serious amount..
settlement on the land, and the development of the mineral and
other resources of the country, have been in a great degree
prohibited by the hostility of the blacks, which still continues
with undiminished spirit." - Queenslander 15 Feb 1879
Unfortunately it contained the secret spice "Uncomfortable Truth"
which Ned has an allergy to, and it caused him to gag,
and spew bile over his next dozen posts.
>
>
> > ROTFL!
>
> Instead of giggling to yourself, go read a book. The lid comes
> off rather easily.
B^D
Oh, that is funny!
>
>
> > You'd better write
> > an appendix for Mao's Little Red Book, hey Guano?
>
> Like it or not; at the time you were *avoiding* service,
> that little book and the philosophy of the author managed
> to kick Britan, France, the USA and Australian troops
> out of SE Asia.
"Every pig is a fertilizer Factory" - Mao Tse Tung
"Every Sheep is weeks food, a warm sheepskin,
bone for tools, sinew for binding, and destroys
the pastoral economy" - Che Guntidjmara ;-)
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Che Guano: "Guerilla Warfare for Focaccio Fondlers".
> >
> > > What scale does she think guerilla warfare is engaged on? =*=
> >
> > She probably takes the rather sensible view that warfare is about
> > *defeating* the enemy rather than getting up his nose.
>
> You really don't know much about anything do you noddy?
He claims to have telepathic knowledge of 'voices' in
other peoples heads. (He certainly spends a lot of time
outside his own).
He's also rather fond of classical Greece's denial of citizenship
to women and slaves. I hear he even tried to implement
fasgnadh
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Ferdie" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey fagarse,
> >
> > Oh, Ned is visiting at your place!
>
> BWAHAHAHA!
Oh, the humanity!
Ferdie, you filthy pervert! STOP MAKING NED SCREAM LIKE THAT!
Fagnadh: "No wonder your arse is so red and distended!"
Ferdie: "RECTUM!"
Fasgnadh: "No doubt! So why do you do it?"
> You worried about more conpiracies against you,
I suggest 'visiting' and you think 'conspiracy'? What a paranoid
nutter you must be! B^p
> Guano?
From your screams it's more likely to be Ferdie,
it just smells like guano.
Wipe you fingers before touching the keyboard,
we don't want it on our intetrnet. ;-)
> Better check in with your god thing about that.
Check with whichever of your imaginary friends you like,
but if they tell you I sent them, they are lying! ROFLMAO!
Oh look another first person auto-biographical by Ned:
> Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
Its true you're a fool, and clueless, Ned, I blame the abuse from your
dad.
> All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
We shouldn't be laughing, it's really quite cruel, but all the
true-blues are glad! B^D
> Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
Everyone down here hates you too, because you are stark raving mad.
> Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
The stick is from ferdie, and so is the clap, your tears are from Che
and fasgnadh! B^D
>
> Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
It's true you're despised, and for all your lies, their hatred will
certainly grow.
> And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
Its what you deserve you low mangy cur, so why don't you pack up and
go!? B^p
> Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
no-one believes your hubris, you fool, no matter how loudly you crow!
B^p
> Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
Still blaming the world? go have a good cry, it's music to us, don't
you know?
B^D
> ROTFL!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAA!
Tristan
"Ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lyzp8.478$l%4.5...@ozemail.com.au...
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > "Ferdie" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey fagarse,
> > >
> > > Oh, Ned is visiting at your place!
> >
> *
> * Better check in with your god thing about that.
> *
> * Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
> * All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
> * Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
> * Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
> *
> * Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
> * And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
> * Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
> * Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
> *
> * ROTFL!
----text restored, batshit snipped----
Ned Latham
>
> You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than this
> at Easter of all times.
>
> Most people know better than to heed this kind of bile.
>
> Most of us know that - if we must judge someone - it ought be from our
> own experiences - not hearsay.
>
> That said, I don't think there are many of us here in a position to judge
>
> Rather, we will simply have to take our time, read his posts, and slowly
> come to our own conclusions.
>
> On the other hand, the fellow who is stirring up all the trouble he has
> made it clear what kind of person he is.
Indeed. Thankyou for that injection of rational thought, Tristan.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
----snip----
> He's also rather fond of classical Greece's denial of citizenship
> to women and slaves.
Wrong again, liar. I'm very partial to classical Athens's admittance
of working class people into full partnership in the affairs of state.
Unlike you establishment flunkies, I also despise the bullshit of
modern so-called democracies denying working class people partnership
in the affairs of state.
> I hear he even tried to implement
> it in place of true-blue freedoms in the a.c.t-b NG.
If that's true, your hearing is as defective as your cognition.
Not that it's credible. You are, after all, a pathological liar.
fasgnadh
"Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
Another Telstra Bogpond Sock Puppet created to order on 22/3/2000
Can't you morons try to make your PHONie spokes Orcs a little
more plausible? B^D
"Bring back Alain"! B^D
> You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than this at
> Easter of all times.
Oi Vei, you Schmuck! Your cultural assumptions at this time
are deeply insulting.
I would think you could show a little more respect for others
during Passover, you Ewin-come-lately! B^D
>
> Most people know better than to heed this kind of bile.
It's never deterred Ned in the past, becasue it's all he knows!
At least his recent psychotherapy after the shock of being
rejected by the true-blues in his failed takeover of the NG
has led to a new level of reflective self-awareness for Ned:
_____________
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrna9tt95....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
...
> Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
Its true you're a fool, and clueless, Ned, I blame the abuse from your
dad.
> All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
We shouldn't be laughing, it's really quite cruel, but all the
true-blues are glad! B^D
> Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
Everyone down here hates you too, because you are stark raving mad.
> Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
The stick is from ferdie, and so is the clap, your tears are from Che
and fasgnadh! B^D
>
> Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
It's true you're despised, and for all your lies, their hatred will
certainly grow.
> And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
Its what you deserve you low mangy cur, so why don't you pack up and
go!? B^p
> Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
no-one believes your hubris, you fool, no matter how loudly you crow!
B^p
> Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
Still blaming the world? go have a good cry, it's music to us, don't
you know?
B^D
___________________________
>
> Most of us know that - if we must judge someone - it ought be from our own
> experiences - not hearsay.
Where did you study Law, Ukelele U?
Judge someone from your own experiences???? B^D
"Sure Mr Bernstein, you will get a fair trial,
the Gestapo will judge you from THEIR experiences." B^P
Stupid redneck sock puppet troll! B^D
>
> That said, I don't think there are many of us here in a position to judge,
> Ned - whatever he stands for.
Larry Cook certainly is.
Ned slandered the innocent Monash academic for over 200 posts,
inciting hatred for him in the most vile terms, and then
posting a link to a photo of the blokes kids!
Now perhaps you would like to tell us why a low life scum sucking
child stalker would try and intimidate a person who had never
done him any harm in any way....? Because that moral maggot Latham
certainly can't explain his abhorrent child abuse!
>
> Rather, we will simply have to take our time, read his posts, and slowly
> come to our own conclusions.
Says the recently born Bogpond puppet!
Soem of us have been around Lithium long enough to see him
hang himself with his own rope many times
>
> On the other hand, the fellow who is stirring up all the trouble he has made
> it clear what kind of person he is.
The kind of person who associates with Mosley the notorious racist
bigot,
Latham, who cyberstalks the children of his 'imagined' opponents in
a sinister and sick attempt to intimidate them, Madcow, the stalker of
underage boys in nudist NGs, Ferdie, who posts pictures of his well
worn arsehole into a public NG that his mates have said they wanted to
attract schoolchildren to... shall we go on?
Or will you just toddle off and join the rest of their
recent bunch of Telstra Bogpond disposable redneck sock puppet trolls:
MT" <mont@bigpond,com.au
From: "El Diablo" <ElDi...@hotmail.com>
X-Complaints-To: ne...@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1016546135 203.45.96.210 (Wed, 20
Mar 2002 00:55:35 EST)
Don H" donlhu...@bigpond.com
Might be nearly enough material for someone
to take telstra to the TIO again! B^D
http://www.geocities.com/townsville_taliban/
> Tristan
Get your id ready, sonny.
Che always said he wasn't finished with legal action over
the Townsville Taliban's net forgeries and impersonations
(And now that Ned has repeated his 'Larry Cook' style slander and
net stalking the file is far more compelling. ;-)
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Ferdie" wrote:
> > >
> > > You're homophobic
> >
> > Because I object to you posting personal ads containing
> > perverted graphics of your well reamed anus into a NG children
> > might access?
>
> Quit the posturing, you freak.
Most of us decent true-blues are GENUINELY sickened by your
anal obsessive mate posting links to vile pornography in
a NG you and your friends have said you want to attract schoolkids to.
Perhaps a formal complaint to his and your ISP is called for,
and raising the matter with the appropriate authorities.
Once again, it seems a warning, a quiet word suggesting that
your behaviour is inappropriate, fails to bring you to responsible
and decent behaviour.
> You set the tone of this newsgroup.
Thanks, I try very hard to make it the sort of place true-blues
would be proud to bring their kids, despite the undermining of
decent standards by you child stalkers and your coterie of
vile pornographers.
>
> ----snip----
>
> > This is not the first time Ned has defended an adult
> > involved in such despicable behaviour, in the past it was
> > soliciting involvement of underage kids into covert
> > naked activities with adults.
>
> It's not the first time,
Indeed, and you continue to show any decency or remorse.
> because I've never done such.
Liar, in this, one of many threads in which Che questioned
the suitability of an adult advising an underage boy how
to engage in covert naked activities behind his parents back,
(criticism which provoked a campaign of post forgeries and slander
mounted by the adult in question and his cronies) you responded to
the thread ignoring all the moral issues raised and attacking Che.
___________________________
From: Che Guava (che_...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Nudists in damage control Re: Why do Gary's mates rely on
lies? Re: Help us
Newsgroups: aus.culture.naturist, aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View this article only
Date: 2000/09/21
Leigh wrote:
> Che Guava wrote in message <39C8BBF9...@my-deja.com>...
> >
> >Leigh wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Che Guava wrote in message <39C2169E...@my-deja.com>...
> >>
....
>>
>> The amazing thing was that even after knowing the
>> child wanted to go behind his parents back, Gary
>> continued to discuss groups he previously knew of
>> which would be suitable to the purpose.
>>
>> Any responsible adult would not have advised a minor
>> in the first place.
...
>> it was the minor,
>> (confirmed by Voo) who told Gary about
>> the YNOA requirements for parental approval, at which point
>> Gary mentioned a group he was aware of which would
>> have done the job:
>>
>> Boy(after explicitly repeating that he was a minor,
>> was home alone for a fortnight and wanted to go behind
>> his parents back): > "any other ideas"
>>
>> Gary: "Not off the top of my head. I knew someone that
>> used to run a similar "group" from Canberra once,
>> but they have since moved on."
>>
>> Who are this "group" which would have taken the boy without
>> parental knowledge?
>
This is the other key issue that the nudists seek to gloss over and
cover up.
As you all now acknowledge the inappropriateness of an adult
encouraging a minor into covert nudism, what processes does
your fraternity have for self-regulation?
I have been probing these for some days now, and the inescapable
conclusion is that you have none, attack those who subject you
to scrutiny, reluctantly concede your moral respnsibilities, but only
when under duress, and seek to protect mates, and conceal
dubious practices.
Why?
>> > For a parent to be a member, they would have to know it involves
nudity. If
>> > involvement in the YNOA of the minor required the unavoidable
knowledge of
>> > the parents, then the suggestion of contacting YNOA could hardly
constitute
>> > "going behind the parents back".
>>
>> Irrelevant as it was the MINOR who pointed out to Gary
>> the parental involvement, at which point, when asked if
>> he had any other ideas, Gary made no attempt to encourage him
>> down that, LEGITIMATE path, but said "Not off the top of
>> my head.." B^D
>>
.....
>> More seriously, you choose to ignore the clear posts
>> showing Gary offering advice to a minor, .
_______________________
> Not that the truth will ever prevent Guano from spouting his garbage.
People can read Che's post, and your response and decide for
themselves
who was protecting underage boys from the inappropriate attentions
of adults who should know better, and who was protecting the
moral defectives! B^p
>It's the only way he can create an illusion for himself of giving
> someone stick.
As usual, when you lie you are instantly exposed, and the reader is
invited to read backwards through the thread to discover how many
other accusations you didn't even bother to mount a phony defence for.
Ned Latham
> Tristan Ewins wrote:
>
> "Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
----snip----
> > On the other hand, the fellow who is stirring up all the trouble
> > he has made it clear what kind of person he is.
It seems he wants to be absolutely sure that no-one misses out
on seeing it.
----snip----
John Iser
wrote:
Only 'cos it's Easter:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=matthew+7%3A1-2&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> * Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
> > > "Ferdie" wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > >
> > > > You're homophobic
> > >
> > > Because I object to you posting personal ads containing
> > > perverted graphics of your well reamed anus into a NG children
> > > might access?
> >
> * Quit the posturing, you freak. You set the tone of this newsgroup.
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Most of us decent true-blues
You're no True Blue, Guano. You don't have the guts.
> are GENUINELY sickened by your
> anal obsessive mate posting links to vile pornography in
> a NG you and your friends have said you want to attract schoolkids to.
Quit the posturing, you freak. You set the tone of this group.
You're the hypocritical thug who ranted about "freedom of speech"
when we protested about the filth you and your gang of goons were
polluting it with. You're the vicious agitator who dragged in a
whole swag of dropins with no interest in act-b with your lies
and misrepresentation about the moderation proposal to stuff the
ballot with their votes and defeat it.
----snip----
> > > This is not the first time Ned has defended an adult
> > > involved in such despicable behaviour, in the past it was
> > > soliciting involvement of underage kids into covert
> > > naked activities with adults.
> >
> * It's not the first time, because I've never done such. Not that
> * the truth will ever prevent Guano from spouting his garbage. It's
> * the only way he can create an illusion for himself of giving
> * someone stick.
> *
> * > More for the growing police file.
> *
> * So dob me in, you lying snake. I dare you.
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Indeed, and you continue to show any decency or remorse.
>
> > because I've never done such.
>
> Liar, in this, one of many threads in which Che questioned
> the suitability of an adult advising an underage boy how
> to engage in covert naked activities behind his parents back,
Evidence?
If you're going to post something you think might pass as evidence,
Guano, try to make it coherent, at least.
> (criticism which provoked a campaign of post forgeries and slander
> mounted by the adult in question and his cronies)
Evidence?
> you responded to
> the thread ignoring all the moral issues raised and attacking Che.
Bullshit. The whole thing was a beatup by you, you lying skank.
The only genuine moral issue was that raised by your lies and
misrepresentations.
----snip---
> People can read Che's post, and your response and decide for
> themselves who was protecting underage boys from the inappropriate
> attentions of adults who should know better, and who was protecting the
> moral defectives! =*=
Post the message IDs, you piece of filth.
> > It's the only way he can create an illusion for himself of giving
> > someone stick.
>
> As usual, when you lie you are instantly exposed,
"As usual"? I don't lie, you scum, and you've never exposed me.
> and the reader is
> invited to read backwards through the thread to discover how many
> other accusations you didn't even bother to mount a phony defence for.
With enormous numbers of them, why bother? They're so bloody inept and
obviously false that the only people they fool are morons like Hancock.
Tristan
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com...
> "Tristan Ewins" <tris...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:<8fzp8.4151$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> "Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
>
> Another Telstra Bogpond Sock Puppet created to order on 22/3/2000
>
> Can't you morons try to make your PHONie spokes Orcs a little
> more plausible? B^D
>
> "Bring back Alain"! B^D
Oh - so now I'm a 'sock' am I? If you say so. Well, your anagram was very
clever, but you know you see all kinds of things when you descend into
paranoia. Some of them are real, some of them aren't. The problem is when
you reach that point at which you can't tell the difference.
As for 'Orcs' - where do you think we are - in Middle Earth or Blake's
prophetic works? And who do you think you are - Gandalf the Grey or the Big
Bad Wolf?
> > You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than this
at
> > Easter of all times.
>
> Oi Vei, you Schmuck! Your cultural assumptions at this time
> are deeply insulting.
>
> I would think you could show a little more respect for others
> during Passover, you Ewin-come-lately! B^D
So what are you saying then? That you're Jewish? If that were the case, I
would have hoped you would know better than to resort to the kind of 'Race
War' rhetoric you're indulging in. Tolkien's all very well and fine as a
fantasy novelist, but once you take his essentialist and racialist themes
and apply them to the real world, then you have a recipe for hatred of
Hitler-esque proportions. Of course, perhaps there is more truth in
Tolkien, Blake - and even Goethe - then most of us would be aware of.. And
yet most of us gaze around the world and see ONE race, and one race only:
that is, the HUMAN race. How would it be, I wonder, if human civilisation
was like the Natural world - where one species fed upon the other for
survival? But the reality is that most people just want to live through
THIS life in peace, and perhaps make the world a better place. And then
there are the people, full of hate, who would comdemn a man to a living-Hell
simply because the sequencing of his genetic code was different from theirs.
I have seen all this and more - and it has made me sick to my very bones,
and weary to the point where I can hardly go on.
Wouldn't it be nice if they threw a Race War and nobody came?
But YOU'D come - wouldn't you?
> > Most people know better than to heed this kind of bile.
>
> It's never deterred Ned in the past, becasue it's all he knows!
>
> At least his recent psychotherapy after the shock of being
> rejected by the true-blues in his failed takeover of the NG
> has led to a new level of reflective self-awareness for Ned:
> ...
> > Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
>
> Its true you're a fool, and clueless, Ned, I blame the abuse from your
> dad.
Why don't you crucify him then? That seems you style.
Sick and tired of all the hate and pain and horror. Nothing ever changes.
Tristan
fasgnadh
>
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tristan Ewins" <tris...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<8fzp8.4151$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> >
> > "Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
> >
> > Another Telstra Bogpond Sock Puppet created to order on 22/3/2000
> >
> > Can't you morons try to make your PHONie spokes Orcs a little
> > more plausible? B^D
> >
> > "Bring back Alain"! B^D
>
>
> Oh - so now I'm a 'sock' am I? If you say so. Well, your anagram was very
> clever, but you know you see all kinds of things when you descend into
> paranoia. Some of them are real, some of them aren't. The problem is when
> you reach that point at which you can't tell the difference.
Feeling a bit narky are you? After just one post where your identity
was challenged?
What happened to your "Why can't we all get along in peace' line? ;-)
That must give you some insight into the experience of those under
ceaseless,
slanderous attack by a small group of PHONies pushing an agenda of
racism and xenophobia.
The question I have to ask you is simple:
Are you a pacifist?
If you are, then I don't expect you to fight injustice,
but merely to tolerate it.
>
> As for 'Orcs' - where do you think we are -
Context:
http://www.geocities.com/che_guava_fanclub/world.html
first few images.
When you understand peoples context, you are in a better position
to pass judgement on them, eh, Pilate?
> in Middle Earth or Blake's prophetic works?
Why did you ignore the qualifier 'PHONie' ....Orcs?
The specific context is political, it refers to
racists, bigots and xenophobes.
You may want to hug everyone, including child stalkers,
but I believe in justice tempered by mercy, not wooly headed
quiescence.
> And who do you think you are - Gandalf the Grey or the Big
> Bad Wolf?
So you want to take a partisan position in the struggle after all.
That was a quick conversion, did you fall off your high moral horse?
Why is sarcastic verbal disputation a fault in others, but not
yourself?
> > > You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than this
> > > at Easter of all times.
You see how your cultural determinism blinds you to other texts?
Passover is a time when Gods judgement is wreaked upon wrongdoers
and the righteous spared. 8^o They are 'passed over'.
You don't sup with the jackal when it has just taken your leg off.
You seemed to enjoin 'respect' seperate from the context in which
it may be granted, or causes for it to be revoked.
You are a rank newcomer to the NG and have no idea of the
experience on which my judgements are based, do you?
And so, should the rape victim 'respect' the rapist?
Arriving at the siege of Berlin would you assume the Russians
were the agressors and chide them for shelling the Nazis?
I tried to suggest, with irony, that your assumption of moral
superiority
was based on a false premise, (ie that your cultural reference was
universal),
it appears my approach was too subtle:
> >
> > Oi Vei, you Schmuck! Your cultural assumptions at this time
> > are deeply insulting.
> >
> > I would think you could show a little more respect for others
> > during Passover, you Ewin-come-lately! B^D
>
>
> So what are you saying then?
That if you are going to chide others for failing to
meet your Xtian standards you should prepare to be
told that not everyone is Xtian, that your standards require
a specific context to have any meaning, and yours is only one
possible reading of the significance of 'this time'.
> That you're Jewish?
Or just more capable of seeing broader perspectives than you?
> If that were the case, I
> would have hoped you would know better than to resort to the kind of 'Race
> War' rhetoric you're indulging in.
What 'race war' rhetoric? For someone making a career out
of high moral stands you are sailing perilously close to hypocrisy
and hubris.
Orcs are a different, if imaginary, *species* aren't they?
So I have used them in allegorical form, linked to PHONie,
to suggest a malign agression, drive for domination,
destruction of the weak, scapegoatism, and lack
of compassion and mercy.
I apply the term with precision, when those attributes
are demonstated CONCRETELY, by individuals.
In your case, as the people I was adressing are known net forgers
and fraudulent impersonators of others net-ids, I probed..
"I smell another sock puppet of theirs"
> Tolkien's all very well and fine as a fantasy novelist,
> but once you take his essentialist and racialist themes
> and apply them to the real world,
Tolkein did not invent the term 'Orc'
would you like to go out and come in again?
> then you have a recipe for hatred of
> Hitler-esque proportions.
See, once more you are lecturing on the basis of your
(flawed) reference frames.
I repeat: Oi Vei!
> Of course, perhaps there is more truth in
> Tolkien, Blake - and even Goethe - then most of us would be aware of..
Thats ok, you can say that without being accused of Tolkeinesque
RAHOWA
I am more tolerant of the sinister use of metaphor and allegory than
some. ;-)
> And yet most of us gaze around the world and see ONE race, and one race only:
> that is, the HUMAN race.
Very nice. The people I am engaged in vigorous debate here with
are of a different view.
Perhaps if you read their posts you might understand.
> How would it be, I wonder, if human civilisation
> was like the Natural world - where one species fed upon the other for
> survival?
There are no butchers shops in your civilization? ;-)
Look, your broad left position seems sound, if superficial,
you tend to quote without much analysis, and preach the
rest of the time, so my advice is, be more careful
about those assumptions.
The fundamental organizing principle of the Natural world is
a dynamic, sustainable, interdependent DIVERSITY.
An ecosystem relies on symbiosis as much as on competition,
and conversely, our civilization relies on the consumption of
other life forms.
It's not a simple moral tale as you present.
> But the reality is that most people just want to live through
> THIS life in peace, and perhaps make the world a better place.
Are you prepared to struggle, or will you confront fascism with
sermons?
When you have answered that question then you need to ask me
who I am in struggle with, to determine if you think my means
are appropriate and justified.
> And then there are the people, full of hate, who would comdemn a man to a living-Hell
> simply because the sequencing of his genetic code was different from theirs.
Ah, now you are coming close to describing a certain
anti-multicultural,
anti-ethnic, anti immigrant ideology promoted by a small group who
tried to sieze control of this NG, and prevent any but their own views
being put.
Intolerant, racist, bigoted anti-democrats are not 'hated' by me,
but they are opposed with great vigour.
Do you get my drift?
> I have seen all this and more - and it has made me sick to my very bones,
> and weary to the point where I can hardly go on.
You sound very young, and not very steadfast.
Take heart, mankind has evolved, physically, spiritually,
intellectually
and socially to this point, and continues to asymptote toward
perfection.
Do not confuse contention with destruction.
From the clash of differing opinions comes the spark of enlightenment.
> Wouldn't it be nice if they threw a Race War and nobody came?
??? The posts I am *disputing* are by people who extrapolate
from food poisoning at a mosque to claim Muslims are dirty,
who deny the massacre of aboriginal people, and who yearn
for a return to the White Australia Policy.
Do some research before shooting your mouth off and
adopting their side in either ignorance or partisanship:
>
> But YOU'D come - wouldn't you?
"So you want to take a partisan position in the struggle after all.
That was a quick conversion, did you fall off your high moral horse?"
>
>
> > > Most people know better than to heed this kind of bile.
You posted this to Ned. And knowing his work, it
would take little to agree.
But with such an accusation, and the ones that follow, you really
have a duty to
- be specific,
- quote examples
- give citations
- consider the context
> >
> > It's never deterred Ned in the past, becasue it's all he knows!
> >
> > At least his recent psychotherapy after the shock of being
> > rejected by the true-blues in his failed takeover of the NG
> > has led to a new level of reflective self-awareness for Ned:
>
> > ...
> > > Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
> >
> > Its true you're a fool, and clueless, Ned, I blame the abuse from your
> > dad.
>
>
> Why don't you crucify him then?
Because that would be excessive violence for his crimes of malign
stupidity.
You seem to oscilate between touchy-feely discomfort with
reasoned, but vigorous verbal confrontation, and judgemental
overeaction.
> That seems you style.
Actually the Christian imagery is more Your style. B^)
I merely mock the schmuck.
>
> Sick and tired of all the hate and pain and horror.
Let me guess, you are tired after some ... 20 years?
> Nothing ever changes.
Thats why I'm sure you are not very experienced.
> Tristan
BTW I liked your piece on Habermas.
See if you can work on some draft conventions for virtual communities,
i.e. take it beyond mere statement of principle, to application in a
concrete instance.
Just a suggestion, but you might want to look at Scott Peck on
stages of community formation and maybe even Joiner et al
on teambuilding.
Consider this:
1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to
take
part in a discourse.
2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
discourse.
2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik,"
86)
For the record, those I am in ideological struggle with breached 1-3
above by;
- attempting to gain control of the open NG under a pretext of
'moderating' behaviours of which they themselves were the prime
examples.
- claiming to speak for "all" the other members of the NG, (until a
vote
rejected their machinations)
- attempting to pre-empt a suggestion that ALL NG members participate
in a process to develop an FAQ, declaring that their particular
clique
had sole right to carry out that task, and to exclude whomever they
saw fit.
- systematically driving altrernate views from the NG until their
tactics were
met with equally strong measures.
(i.e. in my Berlin analogy, you find me shelling the Reichstag.
Are you sufficiently aware of the context to form a judgement?)
This is old news to those who know the NG history, but if you want
references to the relevant posts I am happy to oblige.
You will find many cited events covered in the aus.culture.true-blue
FAQ
at the official website http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
Here is a sample of my contributions to the NG, including original
works,
I invite you to also observe the responses, and draw your own
conclusions:
. From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Thowra runs free
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue
Date: 2002-03-09 16:04:41 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: A peace conference is held
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics,
soc.culture.australian
Date: 2002-03-29 20:45:02 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: My Country
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.history, aus.politics
Date: 2002-03-23 16:18:13 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Ground Zero was Re: A peace conference is held
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics,
soc.culture.australian
Date: 2002-03-30 19:15:12 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Bruce Ruxton, a job well done
Newsgroups: aus.politics, aus.culture.true-blue,
soc.culture.australian
Date: 2002-03-22 23:12:04 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: A Fair Go for Kids
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
Date: 2002-03-21 15:49:17 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Problem gambler in charge of taxpayer funds
Newsgroups: aus.politics, aus.culture.true-blue,
soc.culture.australian
Date: 2002-03-18 04:48:14 PST
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Rooting your best mates wife
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, soc.culture.australian,
aus.politics
Date: 2002-03-16 16:25:22 PST
Tristan
> The question I have to ask you is simple:
>
> Are you a pacifist?
>
> If you are, then I don't expect you to fight injustice,
> but merely to tolerate it.
Actually, I am not a pacifist - but I certainly do prefer peace to war.
Sometimes the latter is unavoidable - but less often than is usually
claimed. Certainly, I do not 'tolerate' injustice. I have spent a good part
of my life fighting it. On the other hand, I do tend to hold to liberal
notions of freedom of speech, association, assembly etc. In my
interpretation 'liberal rights' ARE rights - just not ABSOLUTE rights. For
instance, If I was living in Germany 1932 I would not be so eager to defend
Hitler's right to free speech. Liberal rights are only viable amongst a
political community which holds a consensus as to their validity.
Personally, I might refer to myself as a liberal socialist - amongst other
things. By this I indicate support for many so-called 'liberal rights', but
without the liberal preoccupation with Property, and liberal
constitutionalist delusions as to the nature of the State.
As to the conflict I am observing in aus.politics and
aus.culture.true-blue - I finds the depths to which contributers are sinking
on both sides disgusting. It's often said 'play the ball, not the man' -
and this is a position I fundamentally agree with. I could hardly have any
other position after suffering greatly from the politics of personal
destruction myself.
>
> >
> > As for 'Orcs' - where do you think we are -
>
> Context:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/che_guava_fanclub/world.html
>
> first few images.
>
> When you understand peoples context, you are in a better position
> to pass judgement on them, eh, Pilate?
>
> > in Middle Earth or Blake's prophetic works?
>
> Why did you ignore the qualifier 'PHONie' ....Orcs?
>
> The specific context is political, it refers to
> racists, bigots and xenophobes.
Well, the web site you've directed me towards certainly gives *a* context. I
think, though, there
is more to such metaphors and phraseology than meets the eye.
> You may want to hug everyone, including child stalkers,
> but I believe in justice tempered by mercy, not wooly headed
> quiescence.
Frankly, my desire would be to crush evil, hatred and cruelty wherever I
found it. I don't particularly like to see cruelty to either 'pigs' - as you
refer to Ned - or children. Unfortunately, I have a greater understanding
of what is going on that I am willing to discuss. Imagine how'd you be,
then, if some people called you a 'pig', and others called you a 'child' -
and you copped it in the neck from both sides? All I ever wanted to be was
a whole person. Of course, admist all this, it is innocent PEOPLE who are
hurt the most.
> > And who do you think you are - Gandalf the Grey or the Big
> > Bad Wolf?
>
> So you want to take a partisan position in the struggle after all.
> That was a quick conversion, did you fall off your high moral horse?
>
> Why is sarcastic verbal disputation a fault in others, but not
> yourself?
Actually, I was hoping you could tell me which you identified with. There
was a purpose to the question you know, even if you did not catch it. If
what I'm asking isn't clear to you though, I'm not going to elaborate.
> > > > You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than
this
> > > > at Easter of all times.
>
> You see how your cultural determinism blinds you to other texts?
>
> Passover is a time when Gods judgement is wreaked upon wrongdoers
> and the righteous spared. 8^o They are 'passed over'.
Very funny. In my experience it is the innocent who suffer in a living
Hell, while the cruel and the malicious laugh and mock at their suffering.
There is no 'Providence' - only Hell on Earth.
And - btw - Passover, as far as I'm aware - is a celebration of the freedom
of the Jews from bondage in Egypt.
> You don't sup with the jackal when it has just taken your leg off.
>
> You seemed to enjoin 'respect' seperate from the context in which
> it may be granted, or causes for it to be revoked.
>
> You are a rank newcomer to the NG and have no idea of the
> experience on which my judgements are based, do you?
No - but I don't think the kind of tactics any of you are using are helpful
or constructive under ANY circumstances.
> And so, should the rape victim 'respect' the rapist?
>
> Arriving at the siege of Berlin would you assume the Russians
> were the agressors and chide them for shelling the Nazis?
After 20m Russians died on the Eastern Front, I think it is just a pity they
did not reach Berlin much sooner.
On the other hand, despite innumerable Nazi atrocities, I don't think these
justified the kind of punishment meted out to German civilians in the
closing year of the war... The strategy seemed to be one of overwhelming
Berlin's resources by creating a flood of refugees through Terror. The
bombing of Dresden in which over 100,000 people died is but one example of
this. The 'strategic value' was not in Dredsen's industry (of which there
was little) - but in creating huge refugee movements. A consistent moral
outlook does not condemn atrocities on the one hand, while ignoring them on
the other.
> Orcs are a different, if imaginary, *species* aren't they?
Well, there's the question of exactly what Blake was getting at in his
prophetic works when he 'created' the character of Orc - a name which was
then taken up by Tolkien, and the modern fantasy Genre. What exactly, then,
is Orc symbolic of? Remember, all these characters were taken by Blake to
be constituent parts that had to be reunited were Adam Qadman to be made
whole.
> > Tolkien's all very well and fine as a fantasy novelist,
> > but once you take his essentialist and racialist themes
> > and apply them to the real world,
>
> Tolkein did not invent the term 'Orc'
No, the first reference I am aware of is Blake - but if you are aware of an
earlier reference I'd be interested to hear of it.
> > And yet most of us gaze around the world and see ONE race, and one race
only:
> > that is, the HUMAN race.
>
> Very nice. The people I am engaged in vigorous debate here with
> are of a different view.
Well, then it is up to you to defeat them in the War of Ideas rather than
resorting to the politics of personal destruction. And if it ever gets to
the point in this country where fascism becomes a real prospect - then we
will have to take whatever action is necessary WHEN that time comes. Until
such a time, however, retaining the liberal consensus is in everyone's
interest.
> Perhaps if you read their posts you might understand.
>
> > How would it be, I wonder, if human civilisation
> > was like the Natural world - where one species fed upon the other for
> > survival?
>
> There are no butchers shops in your civilization? ;-)
Yes, though it would seem much worse if we actually fed upon each other,
wouldn't it?
> Look, your broad left position seems sound, if superficial,
> you tend to quote without much analysis, and preach the
> rest of the time, so my advice is, be more careful
> about those assumptions.
Superficial? I have been active in the Left since I was 16 - that is, 12
years. What is
'superficial' about my position? I doubt you know what 'my position' is.
> The fundamental organizing principle of the Natural world is
> a dynamic, sustainable, interdependent DIVERSITY.
>
> An ecosystem relies on symbiosis as much as on competition,
> and conversely, our civilization relies on the consumption of
> other life forms.
And what if this were to be taken so far as the consumption of other
sentient beings? Macabre speculation, I know, but interesting nevertheless.
> Are you prepared to struggle, or will you confront fascism with
> sermons?
I do what I can where I can, but I am limited in my access to knowledge and
resources. It is also difficult when one's 'comrades' are sometimes as
brutal and hypocritical as 'the enemy'. It is also difficult when your
'comrades' indentify anyone who is independent or who thinks for themselves
as 'the enemy' also. (the old: 'if you're not with us, you're against us
line) When I am truly in a position to judge what is right, THEN I will do
whatever is necessary - within the appropriate moral constraints.
> > I have seen all this and more - and it has made me sick to my very
bones,
> > and weary to the point where I can hardly go on.
>
> You sound very young, and not very steadfast.
You would not say that if you had any idea what I have been through these
past few years - although that is not something I am willing to discuss. It
is enough to say that if I had not the strength to persevere I would have
been dead by now.
> Do some research before shooting your mouth off and
> adopting their side in either ignorance or partisanship:
I have seen that both sides are sinking to the same depths - and so in THAT
sense I would not choose one side over the other... If, however, I had to
chooose between bigotry and fascism, and secularism and socialism - I would
choose the later without a second thought. Fight these people in the field
of IDEAS, and you will find that is your strength, and the means by which
you will win others to your cause.
> > Sick and tired of all the hate and pain and horror.
>
> Let me guess, you are tired after some ... 20 years?
Once again, you don't know what I've seen over the past few years - and I'm
not about to make myself vulnerable by elaborating.
> BTW I liked your piece on Habermas.
>
> See if you can work on some draft conventions for virtual communities,
>
> i.e. take it beyond mere statement of principle, to application in a
> concrete instance.
>
> Just a suggestion, but you might want to look at Scott Peck on
> stages of community formation and maybe even Joiner et al
> on teambuilding.
Actually, the article wasn't mine - but I thought it was pertinent - given
the gap between Habermas's theory, and the practice I see every day on the
newsgroups....
I will check out the archives - but once again, I do not believe you can
succesfully fight fascism by adopting the position of the 'lowest common
denominator'. The most important thing is to establish your moral
superiority - and at the moment I don't think you're effectively doing that.
Tristan
Ned Latham
----snip----
> That must give you some insight into the experience of those under
> ceaseless, slanderous attack
Thus spake he who has engaged in ceaaseless slanderous attacks on
people, seemingly for no other reason than that they contest his
ceaseless slanderous attacks on people (though it is my contention
that the reason is his resentment at their failure to pay him the
reverence his sad little ego demands).
> by a small group of PHONies pushing
> an agenda of racism and xenophobia.
Thus spake the PHON reject.
----snip----
> Consider this:
>
> 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to
> take part in a discourse.
>
> 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
>
> 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> discourse.
>
> 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
>
> 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik,"
> 86)
>
> For the record, those I am in ideological struggle with breached 1-3
> above by;
For the record, there's nothing ideological about it. Guano sought from
the start to be the newsgroup's master and star performer. He was rejected,
and has been spitting the dummy ever since.
> - attempting to gain control of the open NG under a pretext of
> 'moderating' behaviours of which they themselves were the prime
> examples.
That's two lies. There was no pretext. The newsgroup had been thoroughly
trashed, and the worst offender was Guano.
> - claiming to speak for "all" the other members of the NG, (until a
> vote rejected their machinations)
That vote was on the proposal to moderate the newsgroup. Guano put an
enormous effort into defeating the proposal, and dragged in a bunch of
dropins who had never before shown any interest in the group so as to
inflate both the discussion and the "no" vote.
An indication of the lengths he went to can be seen in this: between
2001/05/06 and 2001/06/21, during the act-b moderation RFD, he originated
474 threads in aus.net.news which were discernably ad hom or abusive in
the Subject: line alone.
See my message <slrn9j42me....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> for
further details (but be warned, it's 1798 lines long: it contains
suffient detail on all those threads for the reader to investigate
them).
Message <slrn9j3mdv....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> is shorter
(113 lines) and shows why I collated those threads. You might prefer
to look at that post, then decide whether to read the big one.
> - attempting to pre-empt a suggestion that ALL NG members participate
> in a process to develop an FAQ,
That's another lie. In fact, Guano is the one who attempted pre-emption
of the FAQ.
> declaring that their particular
> clique had sole right to carry out that task, and to exclude whomever
> they saw fit.
We never did see Gary's submission included in your fake fack, Guano.
> - systematically driving altrernate views from the NG until their
> tactics were met with equally strong measures.
That's another lie. A typical example of Guano accusing others of
his own villainies.
----snip----
> You will find many cited events covered in the aus.culture.true-blue
> FAQ
The correct description of that coverage is "defamation".
> at the official website http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
That's another lie. There is *no* official act-b FAQ.
> Here is a sample of my contributions to the NG, including original
> works,
Tch. Shame on you, Guano. Shouldn't you invite Tristan to make
his own selection?
> I invite you to also observe the responses, and draw your own
> conclusions:
They should be interesting. I classify the eight posts as follows:
Off charter (political): 4
Containing gratuious attacks: 2
Worthy or seemingly so: 2
I responeded to one of the "worthy" posts with a question,
but it was never answered, despite repetition.
----snip----
fasgnadh
> > The question I have to ask you is simple:
> >
> > Are you a pacifist?
> >
> > If you are, then I don't expect you to fight injustice,
> > but merely to tolerate it.
>
>
> Actually, I am not a pacifist - but I certainly do prefer peace to war.
> Sometimes the latter is unavoidable - but less often than is usually
> claimed. Certainly, I do not 'tolerate' injustice. I have spent a good part
> of my life fighting it. On the other hand, I do tend to hold to liberal
> notions of freedom of speech, association, assembly etc. In my
> interpretation 'liberal rights' ARE rights - just not ABSOLUTE rights. For
> instance, If I was living in Germany 1932 I would not be so eager to defend
> Hitler's right to free speech. Liberal rights are only viable amongst a
> political community which holds a consensus as to their validity.
Then you will understand my impatience with your argument of
moral equivalence, based as it is on limited knowledge of the
background.
Let us try and do this systematically, as I now have sufficient
answers from you to structure the ethical issues:
We have agrement that pacifism is an inadequate response.
I argue that I am shelling Berlin to crush fascism.
So far you have spoke in generalities about the desirability
of peace over war. But once the sudatenland is taken, and
the tanks are rolling across Belgium and into France and Poland?
What do you imagine the response of the allies to your
philosophical proposition would be, IN THE MIDST OF THE WAR?
Or to your distaste that we are (metaphorically) firing at them?
Now that is argument by analogy, but I am not firing anything
except bullets of truth, logical land mines, and psychological
counter measures.
Key proposition: We are past appeasement with these people,
their motives are clear, their actions documented,
therefore we prosecute the matter WITH UTMOST VIGOR,
and the only relevant questions now are 'is our cause just'?
and 'how can we best win'?
As I told you, and you have snipped and evaded, they sought to
control and silence an open NG, they claimed to speak for all,
they engaged in months of character assasination, forging posts,
slander of Larry Cook and cyberstalking his children, and even
offline stalking. In return I mock , dissect, expose, demolish
and riduicule. Persuade me it is an immoderate response.
Any calls from a sunday school teacher bleating that the
Reichstag has a nice dome, and it would all be much nicer if we
were kind to each other, will be treated with the disdain it deserves.
Get real.
> Personally, I might refer to myself as a liberal socialist - amongst other
> things. By this I indicate support for many so-called 'liberal rights', but
> without the liberal preoccupation with Property, and liberal
> constitutionalist delusions as to the nature of the State.
>
> As to the conflict I am observing in aus.politics and
> aus.culture.true-blue - I finds the depths to which contributers are sinking
> on both sides disgusting.
I find your vague innuendo to be disgusting.
I prefer frank, clear and unambiguously just dealing, viz:
When accusations are made, formal charges should be laid,
specifying the nature of the alleged offence, and therefore
giving the accused an opportunity to mount a defence.
So, if you include me in that comment, please provide
examples of what you find objectionable and why.
I don't ask you to do the same for any 'others' on whichever
'sides' you believe you have identified, as I already know
the events and the players.
But on the basis of natural justice, I believe you owe it
even to them, to be specific.
Backbiting, rumour, innuendo are the most sinister of slanders.
> It's often said 'play the ball, not the man' -
> and this is a position I fundamentally agree with.
Are you talking about sport, or struggle? you seem to
apply vague principles imprecisely to all situations.
I find your constant relapse into the comfy nursery imagery
quite disturbing.
Some of these thugs slandered a Monash academic on feeble
and spurious grounds and then, having incited hatred of him,
linked to his kids.
Thus I find Neds sudden roleplay of obsequious agreeability
with you to be deeply suspicious. It suggests contrivance.
In short, I don't trust you.
You snip key issues, and evade critical fracture points.
> I could hardly have any
> other position after suffering greatly from the politics of personal
> destruction myself.
If you don't intend to tender your evidence, don't claim to have it.
Might I suggest that your intimations of victimhood merely
confirm my view that you lack spunk in determining where
you stand, and standing there.
I, on the other hand, have no problem with warrior spirit,
winning a just war, and not only 'playing' a fascist who
is trying to cut your balls off, but knocking the prick senseless.
Figuratively speaking of course.
So I had quickly determined that once you had chosen between
pacifism / justice then the only issue between us would be
'just cause', and I began to give you details of the annexation
of Sudatenland (takeover of the NG), the removal of citizenship
rights for Jews, homosexuals, and trade unionists (declaring
themselves to 'speak for all of us'), Krystalnacht (slandering
and cyberstalking Larry Cook and his kids) ....
but you have shown no interest in the salient facts. Hmmmmm.
and, inexcusably, then repeat your weak moral equivalence
argument... "I wish you would stop shooting each other"
Listen very carefully.
I and the other victims of these neo-fascists have never tried
to remove their right to speak.
We have never sought ideological control of the NG.
No one has stalked them offline, or their children online.
Your moral equivalence argument is invalid.
Go do needlepoint, and leave the struggle to those
aware of the need, and capable of it.
...
>
> > You may want to hug everyone, including child stalkers,
> > but I believe in justice tempered by mercy, not wooly headed
> > quiescence.
>
>
> Frankly, my desire would be to crush evil, hatred and cruelty wherever I
> found it.
But you mistake the shelling of the Reichstag for the
systematic slaughter of innocent civilians.
And when there is crushing going on, you do not seek to know
if it is of evil, which should be your paramount concern!
For if I'm wrong, you should be opposing me, and if I am
right you should be assisting me.
Otherwise you are just a noise.
> I don't particularly like to see cruelty to either 'pigs' - as you
> refer to Ned - or children.
Interesting, and very revealing.
Where do you say have I been cruel to pigs?
> Unfortunately, I have a greater understanding
> of what is going on that I am willing to discuss.
ooh aaaah! mysterioso! B^D
Unfortunately you sound very lame.
Unfortunately you demonstrate less understanding
than you have been able to discuss.
> Imagine how'd you be,
> then, if some people called you a 'pig',
You can't be serious? Are you from a Kindergarten?
Every primary school child endures these taunts.
And your focus on that, given the assault on children
which provoked it, is certainly evidence of moral
incapacity and partisanship. Suspicions confirmed.
Having passed beyond the larval stage we expect a little
more robustness, (and significantly greater evil) to justify all
the moral huffing and puffing you are twanging on about.
You claim not to be a pacifist, explain what action YOU
think reasonable:
A man posts over 200 vicious, slandering attacks on an innocent
person, completely blameless. He assaults his character with
vile abuse, and having incited hatred of the man, then posts
links to an image of his victim's kids.
When confronted with the INSANITY on which he based his ill
judged assaults, he refuses to express any remorse.
And you, you dickless wonder, pontificate about the inappropriateness
of calling such a gutless moral defective and shitpig, a pig? B^p
Have I been sufficiently graphic for you to climb down from
your high horse, overcome all your tragic past of mysterious
victimhood, and actually demonstrate when your non-pacifist
struggle against manifest injustice might actually KICK IN?
Pfffft!
> and others called you a 'child' -
> and you copped it in the neck from both sides?
I would like to express deep sympathy for your manifest
suffering, but unfortunately there are reasons I may
not speak.
Other than this vital aid to your transition into adulthood:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but names will never hurt me" B^p
> All I ever wanted to be was a whole person.
If you had shown an inkling of empathy for Larry Cooks
kids, you might deserve some now.
Good luck seeking 'wholeness'
I recommend starting with some balls.
> Of course, admist all this, it is innocent PEOPLE who are
> hurt the most.
>
> > > And who do you think you are - Gandalf the Grey or the Big
> > > Bad Wolf?
> >
> > So you want to take a partisan position in the struggle after all.
> > That was a quick conversion, did you fall off your high moral horse?
> >
> > Why is sarcastic verbal disputation a fault in others, but not
> > yourself?
>
>
> Actually, I was hoping you could tell me which you identified with.
Yes, you love to arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.
But I am inclined to whimper that you have called me a wolf,
a big bad wolf at that! And while the pig is a noble and
treasured animal to the Chinese, the Wolf is a transmitter
of rabies. Oh, woe is me. How could you be so cruel! 8...(
And I have only just got over the trauma of my girlfriend,
Little Red's, untimely end as Lupus Lunch..
you heartless bastard!
I don't 'identify' with either, or any.
The Ents, possibly.
I would suggest that the only character in the whole thing
who is more than one dimensional, is Gollum, but that would leave
me open to all kinds of attack. B^p
> There
> was a purpose to the question you know, even if you did not catch it.
And there was a purpose to mentioning it, but not revealing it..
Ooooooh Wah!
> If what I'm asking isn't clear to you though, I'm not going to elaborate.
Care factor?
>
>
> > > > > You'd think we could show a little more respect for each other than
> this
> > > > > at Easter of all times.
> >
> > You see how your cultural determinism blinds you to other texts?
> >
> > Passover is a time when Gods judgement is wreaked upon wrongdoers
> > and the righteous spared. 8^o They are 'passed over'.
>
>
> Very funny.
No, just accurate biblically, but your response is funny peculiar.
> In my experience it is the innocent who suffer in a living
> Hell, while the cruel and the malicious laugh and mock at their suffering.
Then I suggest you learn to fight, not mewl.
I reserve my mockery for those who cause suffering,
not those who experience it.
> There is no 'Providence' - only Hell on Earth.
You want people to follow your moral leadership into tears
and despair? B^p
I am sorry, but despite profound difficulty I find
the physical world to be a delight, the human world
to be a complex challenge and the future to be
an exciting undiscovered country.
>
> And - btw - Passover, as far as I'm aware - is a celebration of the freedom
> of the Jews from bondage in Egypt.
Yes but if you If you choose to laugh at the detailed
explanation, what can anyone do?
In Exodus 12 Moses is told that every Jewish family in Egypt is to
splash the blood of a lamb on the door posts and lintel
of their dwelling and to eat the lamb while fully dressed, ready
for departure..
Ex 12:11" And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded,
your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and ye shall
eat it in haste, it is the Lords passover.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and I will
smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast,
and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgement:I am
the Lord.
13 And the blood shall be for a token upon the houses where ye are,
and when i see the blood I will pass over you...."
In your case I recommend particular reflection on the
girding of loins, (and not the smiting of firstborn, which
is a breach of the geneva convention, and really should
never be undertaken unless at the express command of the allmighty,
and even then I suggest questioning the order, and refusing to
fire the missiles, ..unless of course, the nazis are coming to
smite YOUR firstborn, in which case, give them both barrels.)
> > You don't sup with the jackal when it has just taken your leg off.
> >
> > You seemed to enjoin 'respect' seperate from the context in which
> > it may be granted, or causes for it to be revoked.
> >
> > You are a rank newcomer to the NG and have no idea of the
> > experience on which my judgements are based, do you?
>
>
> No - but I don't think the kind of tactics any of you are using are helpful
> or constructive under ANY circumstances.
Ok, i'll stop talking to you rationally if thats what you think best.
B^p
But personally I prefer discussion (diplomacy) to war.
Better to vent than rent.
(Now, would you care to be SPECIFIC, and illustrate
WITH AN EXAMPLE OR TWO just which TACTICS you refer too?
And perhaps outline the context in which I used them, and the
contexts, if any, in which you might consider such tactics..
Oh no, wait.. you have told us these are tactics a non-pacifist
like you would NEVER use in ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! 8^o
Shit, they must have been horrendous! Or else you are wanking.
> > > And so, should the rape victim 'respect' the rapist?
Was that one too hard?
> >
> > Arriving at the siege of Berlin would you assume the Russians
> > were the agressors and chide them for shelling the Nazis?
>
>
> After 20m Russians died on the Eastern Front, I think it is just a pity they
> did not reach Berlin much sooner.
That would have required Loin Girding.
I suspect there were fifth columnists destroying morale
by suggesting to the troops they should not call the
Nazi's pigs, even if they were slaughtering millions in ovens.
Because as you point out, NAME CALLING IS THE REALLY REPREHENSIBLE
CRIME.
B^p
> On the other hand, despite innumerable Nazi atrocities, I don't think these
> justified the kind of punishment meted out to German civilians in the
> closing year of the war... The strategy seemed to be one of overwhelming
> Berlin's resources by creating a flood of refugees through Terror. The
> bombing of Dresden in which over 100,000 people died is but one example of
> this. The 'strategic value' was not in Dredsen's industry (of which there
> was little) - but in creating huge refugee movements. A consistent moral
> outlook does not condemn atrocities on the one hand, while ignoring them on
> the other.
I'll bear that in mind if i'm ever tempted to move from
righteous indignation and calling a shitpig a spade,
to bombing civilians.
I'm sure i can rely on your keen sense of perspective
to assist.
>
> > Orcs are a different, if imaginary, *species* aren't they?
>
>
> Well, there's the question of exactly what Blake was getting at in his
> prophetic works when he 'created' the character of Orc - a name which was
> then taken up by Tolkien, and the modern fantasy Genre.
Tell ya what, you sort out that life threatening issue,
while I call this childstalker over here a nazi. B^p
> What exactly, then, is Orc symbolic of?
I really hate it when people snip your detailed
answer to an anticipated question, and then ask the
question, don't you?
It's like finding your ammo cases are missing in the middle
of a fierce engagement, because someone is using them
for a bookcase:
> Remember, all these characters were taken by Blake to
> be constituent parts that had to be reunited were Adam Qadman to be made
> whole.
>
>
> > > Tolkien's all very well and fine as a fantasy novelist,
> > > but once you take his essentialist and racialist themes
> > > and apply them to the real world,
> >
> > Tolkein did not invent the term 'Orc'
>
>
> No, the first reference I am aware of is Blake - but if you are aware of an
> earlier reference I'd be interested to hear of it.
I thought it was mythical, as ancient as Gollum.
> > > And yet most of us gaze around the world and see ONE race, and one race
> only:
> > > that is, the HUMAN race.
> >
> > Very nice. The people I am engaged in vigorous debate here with
> > are of a different view.
>
> Well, then it is up to you to defeat them in the War of Ideas rather than
> resorting to the politics of personal destruction.
Define 'politics of personal destruction'
The stalking of Larry Cook, Che's fight through the TIO
when the taliban conspired to pressure his ISP to cancel
his account, Theodore Kaldis posting pictures on the net
of the house in which one of his Usenet opponent lives,
threats o physical violence... all these forms of
intimidation come to mind.
Or do you mean the heinous crime of calling such neo-
fascist thugs, neo fascist thugs?
> And if it ever gets to
> the point in this country where fascism becomes a real prospect - then we
> will have to take whatever action is necessary WHEN that time comes.
The time comes when you witness manifest injustice,
and it is too late, when you fail to act.
See a childstalker, take them to task IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!
Encounter racism.. get stuck in!
> Until such a time, however, retaining the liberal
> consensus is in everyone's interest.
What part of opposing racist bigots via robust discussion
do you claim threatens the liberal consensus?
THose that propose illiberal discrimination stand
outside the liberal consensus.
They should be encouraged to step back within it,
or be engaged and opposed.
>
>
> > Perhaps if you read their posts you might understand.
No interest in discussing real, as distinct from abstract, evil?
> >
> > > How would it be, I wonder, if human civilisation
> > > was like the Natural world - where one species fed upon the other for
> > > survival?
> >
> > There are no butchers shops in your civilization? ;-)
>
>
> Yes, though it would seem much worse if we actually fed upon each other,
> wouldn't it?
your point was 'how would it be for civilization...
where one species fed upon the other for survival'
my point was 'what civilization didn't?"
Do you now want to discuss the moral evil of cannibalism?
If they gulp each other down, will you still object to
me calling them 'pigs'?
> > Look, your broad left position seems sound, if superficial,
> > you tend to quote without much analysis, and preach the
> > rest of the time, so my advice is, be more careful
> > about those assumptions.
>
>
> Superficial?
don't be hurt, you confirm my first impression by
advising below that the Habermas piece is just cut and paste.
> I have been active in the Left since I was 16 - that is, 12
> years.
and my age guess was reasonably accurate.
> What is 'superficial' about my position?
See post above. also,
'you quote judge not, lest ye be judged' but then
assume a moral (mounted) position of Grand Arbiter,
when your weltenshuang is too dismal to assume leadership,
moral or otherwise:
"There is no 'Providence' - only Hell on Earth"
also "you tend to quote without much analysis"
and you don't give proper attribution when quoting the
works of others.
in short, you lack rigour.
> I doubt you know what 'my position' is.
Well, while you baulked at 'superficial, you Passed Over
'broad left' without complaint. ;-)
"This essay, and other papers can be found at the Australian Broad
Left NetworkYahoo" was a reasonable indicator.
Your Marx is better than most.
I've read your reposts from (or some one you quote, we can't tell)
on liquidating social democracy and Edward Said
Your post on Lev is nearly a month after my own, Lev and
Che have frequently been charged by those with Identity
Delusion Disorder of being one another, and being me. ;-)
Lev was a stalwart in the great 'Son of ATSIC chair
denies water to Framlingham aboriginals' saga.
It was Ironbark, assisted by Che and taken up by Lev,
who campaigned about the denial of water to those folk
in high summer, (opposed by the racists and bigots here)
which resulted in Andrew Rule going to investigate,
hearing the stories about Clarke, and subsequently
winning three journalism awards.
B^D
While you may not appreciate it, the noise generated by
the Townsville Taliban helped to stimulate initial interest in
that issue.. they were so strident, so determinedly
obstructionist, that their sly bigotry provoked curiosity
and then revulsion.
Ironbark and Che's ascerbic attacks upon their virulent
prejudices played a significant role in that outcome.
Dare to struggle, dare to win, means risking dirty hands.
Fight hard, but without malice, acknowledge mistakes,
be open to compromise, but firm in princple,
absolutely determined, and tactically flexible,
most importantly, be driven by justice and compassion,
and detached from outcomes.
> > The fundamental organizing principle of the Natural world is
> > a dynamic, sustainable, interdependent DIVERSITY.
> >
> > An ecosystem relies on symbiosis as much as on competition,
> > and conversely, our civilization relies on the consumption of
> > other life forms.
>
>
> And what if this were to be taken so far as the consumption of other
> sentient beings?
I thought all carnivores ate sentient beings regularly,
but usually after they ceased to be sentient. ;-)
> Macabre speculation, I know, but interesting nevertheless.
Are you feeling hungry? 8^)
> > Are you prepared to struggle, or will you confront fascism with
> > sermons?
>
>
> I do what I can where I can, but I am limited in my access to knowledge and
> resources. It is also difficult when one's 'comrades' are sometimes as
> brutal and hypocritical as 'the enemy'.
I have never stalked or threatened, or pursued offline
any opponent, and I consider none to be enemies.
But against certain manifested behaviours I play up to,
and including, the rules.
> It is also difficult when your
> 'comrades' indentify anyone who is independent or who thinks for themselves
> as 'the enemy' also. (the old: 'if you're not with us, you're against us
> line) When I am truly in a position to judge what is right, THEN I will do
> whatever is necessary - within the appropriate moral constraints.
I make no apologies for probing, testing and being suspicious.
>
> > > I have seen all this and more - and it has made me sick to my very
> bones,
> > > and weary to the point where I can hardly go on.
> >
> > You sound very young, and not very steadfast.
>
>
> You would not say that if you had any idea what I have been through these
> past few years - although that is not something I am willing to discuss. It
> is enough to say that if I had not the strength to persevere I would have
> been dead by now.
>
>
> > Do some research before shooting your mouth off and
> > adopting their side in either ignorance or partisanship:
>
>
> I have seen that both sides are sinking to the same depths - and so in THAT
> sense I would not choose one side over the other... If, however, I had to
> chooose between bigotry and fascism, and secularism and socialism - I would
> choose the later without a second thought. Fight these people in the field
> of IDEAS, and you will find that is your strength, and the means by which
> you will win others to your cause.
I have a very specific function here, I am the fasgnadh.
the winnower.
Che won his battles, and is not wearied by the struggle:
> > > Sick and tired of all the hate and pain and horror.
> >
> > Let me guess, you are tired after some ... 20 years?
>
>
> Once again, you don't know what I've seen over the past few years - and I'm
> not about to make myself vulnerable by elaborating.
No one has asked you to, I merely sensed that
you were realtively young to be 'sick and tired'.
I would neither minimise or belittle anothers pain.
>
>
> > BTW I liked your piece on Habermas.
> >
> > See if you can work on some draft conventions for virtual communities,
> >
> > i.e. take it beyond mere statement of principle, to application in a
> > concrete instance.
> >
> > Just a suggestion, but you might want to look at Scott Peck on
> > stages of community formation and maybe even Joiner et al
> > on teambuilding.
>
>
> Actually, the article wasn't mine - but I thought it was pertinent - given
> the gap between Habermas's theory, and the practice I see every day on the
> newsgroups....
>
> I will check out the archives - but once again, I do not believe you can
> succesfully fight fascism by adopting the position of the 'lowest common
> denominator'.
I reject your, so far unsubstantiated, allegation that
i employ the LCD.
Sincere and genuine reproval, irrespective of vocabulary,
is an honest and reasonable response, to moderate infamy.
"I don't swear just for the hell of it
language is a poor enough means of communication
I think we should use all the words we've got"
- Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind
> The most important thing is to establish your moral
> superiority - and at the moment I don't think you're effectively doing that.
That's because i don't believe in, or aim for, moral superiority,
and mistrust those who believe they posess it.
"o Lord, protect us from those to whom you speak directly" ;-)
I assess, weigh, determine, judge act and live with consequences.
without ever assuming that I have certainty.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > That must give you some insight into the experience of those under
> > ceaseless, slanderous attack
I have posted details of over 200 posts in which you
slandered Larry Cook. You provide no evidence of alleged
slander by me.
>
> Thus spake he who has engaged in ceaaseless slanderous attacks on
> people, seemingly for no other reason than that they contest his
> ceaseless slanderous attacks on people (though it is my contention
> that the reason is his resentment at their failure to pay him the
> reverence his sad little ego demands).
>
> > by a small group of PHONies pushing
> > an agenda of racism and xenophobia.
>
> Thus spake the PHON reject.
Having never applied for PHON membership, never
supported them, or had any association other than
criticising them, this statement by you is a lie,
and you cannot provide substantiation, becasue there is none.
A slander which proves my point.
Q.E.D.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
>
>
> > Consider this:
> >
> > 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to
> > take part in a discourse.
> >
> > 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
> >
> > 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
> > discourse.
> >
> > 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.
> >
> > 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from
> > exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2). ("Diskursethik,"
> > 86)
> >
> > For the record, those I am in ideological struggle with breached 1-3
> > above by;
>
> For the record, there's nothing ideological about it. Guano sought from
> the start to be the newsgroup's master and star performer.
'Master' - exercising control of what is posted and by whom.
That is precisely what Ned and Lisa proposed.
A clear breach of 3.
'star performer' - quite likely, by creative contributuions,
numbers of threads initiated, originality and humour,
Che is a star. Clearly this, and 2c, rankles with Ned. B^p
> He was rejected,
That is correct, those who proclaimed themselves the
controlling elite tried relentless abuse, villification,
threats, impersonation, net fraud, slander and childstalking,
offline stalking, and every other method they could conceive of
to prevent Che from exercising 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3.
> and has been spitting the dummy ever since.
i.e. He protested the breaches listed above.
Loudly, convincingly and effectively. B^)
Hence Neds deep resentment and venom.
>
> > - attempting to gain control of the open NG under a pretext of
> > 'moderating' behaviours of which they themselves were the prime
> > examples.
>
> That's two lies.
You can't deny your attempt to 'Prevent' under clause 3.
You and/or your neo-fascist cronies bragged of 'Getting Che'
via the moderation proposal.
> There was no pretext.
Every reason you advanced for your proposal,
from crossposting to abuse, was practiced by YOU.
Hence your pretext for control was a pretext.
> The newsgroup had been thoroughly
> trashed, and the worst offender was Guano.
Mere assertion. Not supported by the facts.
Typical of the personal attacks and baseless
character asssasination used to try and drive out dissenting views.
The NG was functioning, those that voted AGAINST
your proposal told admin they resented having the
open NG they had voted for, taken away, when all
you had to do if you wanted a closed, sheltered workshop
was set yourselves up one! B^p
But no, your desire was to control and prevent the expressions of
others
which you continually characterize as 'disruption'.
You don't grasp 1 and 2a-c above.
>
> > - claiming to speak for "all" the other members of the NG, (until a
> > vote rejected their machinations)
>
> That vote was on the proposal to moderate the newsgroup.
A clear breach of 3, removing rights under 1, 2a, 2b and 2c.
> Guano put an enormous effort into defeating the proposal,
a right under 2a and 2b which you clearly do not accept
and still wish to crush.
> and dragged in a bunch of
> dropins who had never before shown any interest in the group so as to
> inflate both the discussion and the "no" vote.
Your elitist proprietal view, that an open Usenet NG is
yours to determine who may participate, is noted.
Case dismissed! You rank Oligarch!
>
> An indication of the lengths he went to can be seen in this: between
> 2001/05/06 and 2001/06/21, during the act-b moderation RFD, he originated
> 474 threads in aus.net.news which were discernably ad hom or abusive in
> the Subject: line alone.
Your subjective view, contested and unproven,
BUT EVEN IF TRUE, YOU REVEAL YOUR CONTEMPT FOR 2b
You may be offended by being branded a rank oligarch with
an elitest and proprietal view, but it's a valid view,
(and objectively true ;-).
Moreover, in contrast to such well founded criticism, your own
abuse and ad hom was and is, legendary, compounded, clearly,
by an unsurpassed hypocrisy! B^D
> See my message <slrn9j42me....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> for
> further details (but be warned, it's 1798 lines long: it contains
> suffient detail on all those threads for the reader to investigate
> them).
Yes, your attempts under 3, to use all forms of coercion to
silence Che, your relentless vendetta born of jealousy
and obsessive desire to control, is well documented.
>
> Message <slrn9j3mdv....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> is shorter
> (113 lines) and shows why I collated those threads. You might prefer
> to look at that post, then decide whether to read the big one.
Why, all you had to do was not read posters whose views
you don't like, or set up a closed NG if you desired.
YOUR freedoms were in no way impinged, instead you sought to
REMOVE the right to speak, from others.
You don't even seem to be sufficiently self-aware to understand
what a hypocrite you are.
"True Blue Australians believe in free speech,
hence the newsgroup is unmoderated. "
- The Townsville Taliban's Sacred Creed
They mouthed the words, but betrayed the deed
>
> > - attempting to pre-empt a suggestion that ALL NG members participate
> > in a process to develop an FAQ,
>
> That's another lie. In fact, Guano is the one who attempted pre-emption
> of the FAQ.
The first mention of a FAQ proposal to the NG was made by Che
in his post of 7/3/2000 where he clearly invited
*universal participation* :
______________
"Everyone and anyone is welcome to jump in anytime
and contribute.. I don't own this.. I just wanted to get it
rollin....
Even Gary can tuck his tail between his legs and tag along.. ;-)
Eventually, with THE GROUPS INPUT AND AGREEMENT
it could form the basis of an FAQ! 8^o"
______________
Subsequent to that open invitation, the Townsville Taliban
attempted to assert a coup d'etat, ignoring any open NG discussion
or PARTICIPATION in PRODUCING a collective work, refusing even
the invitation to discuss a PROCESS for creating the FAQ, they
baldly announced that THEY would SPEAK FOR EVERYONE,
and provide their document to be foisted on everyone:
Lance Baker wrote:
"I believe the FAQ is almost complete."
Well, with such a contrast between open inclusive process
and hegemonic control, Che mounted a noisy campaign for
a FAIR GO FOR ALL, which is, after all, what this NG
is all about.
It is his fight for basic justice on this issue, and the Talibans
desire to control rather than share in, the FAQ, which led to the
conflict
they subsequently portray as 'disruption', blaming ONLY che's side.
See the archive from 3 july 2000 or the summary in
"Repost the proposal for an FAQ"
>
> > declaring that their particular
> > clique had sole right to carry out that task, and to exclude whomever
> > they saw fit.
>
> We never did see Gary's submission included in your fake fack, Guano.
That is the height of hypocrisy, after they rejected his proposal
for an open, inclusive FAQ, and foreshadowing their closed,
exclusive, hegemonic hijack of his proposal, Che decided on
a tactical response, beat them to the task, created the Original FAQ,
and invited submissions.
Gary's 'submission' was an attack in the vein of Neds 'fake fack'
slander. With other imitation FAQ's in the offing,
Che asked if GARY wanted it included in the 'Genuine
Original FAQ', but gary persistantly refused to make that
explicit acknowledgement! B^p
How could Che include it in the FAQ if Gary would not explicitly
state his intention and instead kept saying 'put it in your fake fack,
go-on, you promised' Che didn't have a fake fack, he had a real one.
B^D
B^D Slimy hypocritical twonks, no matter how dirty they played, Che
outfoxed them! B^D
*Anyone* who contributed to the original genuine FAQ, was included.
They still are, but Che has passed on the job of maintaining it.
> > - systematically driving altrernate views from the NG until their
> > tactics were met with equally strong measures.
>
> That's another lie. A typical example of Guano accusing others of
> his own villainies.
Dirtmouth Rays vicious and profane attack set the tone,
and Lisa and her cronies supported it, just because it
was directed at Che, the fox.
>
> ----snip----
> >
> > (i.e. in my Berlin analogy, you find me shelling the Reichstag.
> > Are you sufficiently aware of the context to form a judgement?)
> >
> > This is old news to those who know the NG history, but if you want
> > references to the relevant posts I am happy to oblige.
>
> > You will find many cited events covered in the aus.culture.true-blue
> > FAQ
>
> The correct description of that coverage is "defamation".
B^D And you haven't taken action because you are lying
and would lose your shirt.
>
> > at the official website http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
>
> That's another lie. There is *no* official act-b FAQ.
Funny how Ned has a different lie for every occasion, eh?:
________________________________
From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
Subject: Re: New to News
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue
Date: 2001-04-20 06:56:04 PST
"Che Guava" wrote in <3ADEBC07...@my-deja.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Dajronin wrote:
> > >
> > > I am new to newsgroups, so I don't really know how they work or
> > > what they are for. I am intrigued. Could someone fill me in?
>
> Have a look at the official FAQ for the NG,
at http://www.aussie-culture.net/faq.html
____________________________________________
>
> > Here is a sample of my contributions to the NG, including original
> > works,
>
> Tch. Shame on you, Guano. Shouldn't you invite Tristan to make
> his own selection?
Like you do above? "See my message
<slrn9j42me....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>" but in your case
its a personal attack! Flamin hypocrite!
Tch, shame on you for not managing to get to the end of the
post without once again abandoning the principles you
pretended to endorse at its top:
2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
discourse.
>
> > I invite you to also observe the responses, and draw your own
> > conclusions:
>
> They should be interesting. I classify the eight posts as follows:
Tch. Shame on you, Ned. Shouldn't you allow Tristan
to make his own assessment?
2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the
discourse.
Moreover, for you, who has openly endorsed Lances
Party Political posts for One Nation in this NG
to characterize these as 'political' merely underscores
your deep desire to CONTROL WHAT OTHERS MAY SAY!
Well, TOUGH LUCK POCKET NAZI, THE TRUE-BLUE FREE SPEECH,
DEMOCRATS DEFEATED YOUR OLIGARCHIC CONTROL PUTSCH!
>
> Off charter (political): 4
> Containing gratuious attacks: 2
> Worthy or seemingly so: 2
>
> I responeded to one of the "worthy" posts with a question,
> but it was never answered, despite repetition.
What a complete arsehole, he wants to control
what others may say AND demands they respond to
his interogatories! B^D
Combined as they always are with forged attributions
and abuse!
ROFLMAO!
Well, I thought it better to minimise exchanges
of empty vitriol, but if you insist, lets
see if I can match your tone and intent:
______________________
From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
Subject: A Fair Go for Kids
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-22 03:22:16 PST
fasgnadh wrote
in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
>
> This country used to be about a fair go for everyone,
And now that the mainstream has gone over to greed and lies, and is
maximising the exploitation of workers, you fit right in, eh reject?
________________________________
Go fuck yourself with your own rhetoric impaled on a pointy stick
you vacuous, venomous, bile filled maggot with no interest in
a fair go for kids other than as a vehicle for more
pointless personal attacks by you.
Now have another little bleat about [well deserved] ABUSE
you pathetic hypocrite! B^p
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
----snip----
> > > For the record, those I am in ideological struggle with breached 1-3
> > > above by;
> >
> > For the record, there's nothing ideological about it. Guano sought from
> * the start to be the newsgroup's master and star performer. He was rejected,
> * and has been spitting the dummy ever since.
>
> 'Master' - exercising control of what is posted and by whom.
Here he puts his own spin on what I said.
> That is precisely what Ned and Lisa proposed.
That's two lies.
I did not make the moderation proposal: I supported it.
Mastery was not the object of the proposal: topicality was.
> A clear breach of 3.
>
>
> 'star performer' - quite likely, by creative contributuions,
> numbers of threads initiated, originality and humour,
> Che is a star.
You think you are. Your major "contribution" has been the massive
volumes of garbage you post.
> Clearly this, and 2c, rankles with Ned. =*=
Your self-praise is obnoxious. In small quantities it might have
been tolerable, but the massive doses you churned out were not.
If 2c can't allow Usenet to reject that sort of noise in such nauseating
quantity, it's another defect in Habermas's "ideal" speech situation.
> > He was rejected,
>
> That is correct, those who proclaimed themselves the
> controlling elite
You and the Voices in your head are not an elite, GUano.
> tried relentless abuse, villification,
> threats, impersonation, net fraud, slander and childstalking,
> offline stalking, and every other method they could conceive of
> to prevent Che from exercising 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3.
"C" "h" "e" does not spell "the decent people", cretin.
> > and has been spitting the dummy ever since.
>
> i.e. He protested the breaches listed above.
Wrong again, liar.
> Loudly, convincingly and effectively. =*=
Loudly only. Convincingly only to those who refused to check
both sides of the dispute.
> Hence Neds deep resentment and venom.
My venom, the liar says. So why is it, liar, that it's never
seen except when a troll actually commits an abuse?
> > > - attempting to gain control of the open NG under a pretext of
> > > 'moderating' behaviours of which they themselves were the prime
> > > examples.
> >
> * That's two lies. There was no pretext. The newsgroup had been thoroughly
> * trashed, and the worst offender was Guano.
>
> You can't deny your attempt to 'Prevent' under clause 3.
There was no such attempt, uou liar. It was a moderation proposal.
Usenet has tens of thousands of other newsgroups, some of them actually
dedicated to the anitsocial behaviour you engage in.
> You and/or your neo-fascist cronies bragged of 'Getting Che'
> via the moderation proposal.
Your paranoiac delusions are evidence of nothing but your need for
medication.
> > There was no pretext.
>
> Every reason you advanced for your proposal,
> from crossposting to abuse, was practiced by YOU.
> Hence your pretext for control was a pretext.
Wrong again, liar. I never lied about anyone, and I never defamed
anyone. You did both, massively and repeatedly.
> > The newsgroup had been thoroughly
> > trashed, and the worst offender was Guano.
>
> Mere assertion. Not supported by the facts.
Something like what you do, eh Guano? Okay, then. Look at my message
<slrn9j3mdv....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>.
> Typical of the personal attacks and baseless character
> asssasination used to try and drive out dissenting views.
Yair, yair. Your contempt for the readers' intelligence is showing,
Guano.
> The NG was functioning, those that voted AGAINST
> your proposal told admin they resented having the
> open NG they had voted for, taken away, when all
> you had to do if you wanted a closed, sheltered workshop
> was set yourselves up one! =*=
Many of those voters had never shown any interest in the newsgroup
until you dragged them in with your lies, and just to put some
point to the whole thing, they've never shown any interest in it
since.
> But no, your desire was to control and prevent the expressions of
> others which you continually characterize as 'disruption'.
You misrepresent both my desires and your knowledge of them.
> You don't grasp 1 and 2a-c above.
You don't grasp that this newsgroup is about True Blue. The truth
is a major concern.
> > > - claiming to speak for "all" the other members of the NG, (until a
> > > vote rejected their machinations)
> >
> > That vote was on the proposal to moderate the newsgroup.
>
> A clear breach of 3, removing rights under 1, 2a, 2b and 2c.
Your "right" to defame people is not recognised.
> * Guano put an enormous effort into defeating the proposal, and dragged
> * in a bunch of dropins who had never before shown any interest in the
> * group so as to inflate both the discussion and the "no" vote.
> a right under 2a and 2b which you clearly do not accept
> and still wish to crush.
You're an unconscionable liar, Guano. I have repeatedly stated that
you are welcome to contribute to the group, and I respond positively
on the (extremely rare) occasions that you do so.
> > and dragged in a bunch of
> > dropins who had never before shown any interest in the group so as to
> > inflate both the discussion and the "no" vote.
>
> Your elitist proprietal view, that an open Usenet NG is
> yours to determine who may participate, is noted.
Nothing elitist about pointing out that those people never showed any
interest in the group before you dragged them in for the RFD, and never
showed any interest in it since.
> Case dismissed! You rank Oligarch!
I am a democrat, you lying skank.
> > An indication of the lengths he went to can be seen in this: between
> > 2001/05/06 and 2001/06/21, during the act-b moderation RFD, he originated
> > 474 threads in aus.net.news which were discernably ad hom or abusive in
> > the Subject: line alone.
>
> Your subjective view, contested and unproven,
Wrong again, liar. Objective and proven. And your "contest" was
a non-event.
> BUT EVEN IF TRUE, YOU REVEAL YOUR CONTEMPT FOR 2b
Essentailly, it means that lies and defamations are welcome. That's
not at all conducive to an "ideal" speech situation.
> You may be offended by being branded a rank oligarch with
> an elitest and proprietal view, but it's a valid view,
> (and objectively true ;-).
It is not true, and that's what offends me about it.
> Moreover, in contrast to such well founded criticism, your own
> abuse and ad hom was and is, legendary,
You misspelt "well deserved", moron.
> compounded, clearly,
> by an unsurpassed hypocrisy! =*=
You also misspelt "motivated". Are you *really* sure your incompetence
doesn't surpass your hypocrisy?
> > See my message <slrn9j42me....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> for
> > further details (but be warned, it's 1798 lines long: it contains
> > suffient detail on all those threads for the reader to investigate
> > them).
>
> Yes, your attempts under 3, to use all forms of coercion to
> silence Che,
Tch. Your paranoia's showing again.
> your relentless vendetta born of jealousy
> and obsessive desire to control, is well documented.
ROTFL! That post documents (one aspect of) *your* vendetta, Guano.
Over a mere 6 week period.
> > Message <slrn9j3mdv....@arthur.valhalla.net.au> is shorter
> > (113 lines) and shows why I collated those threads. You might prefer
> > to look at that post, then decide whether to read the big one.
>
> Why, all you had to do was not read posters whose views
> you don't like, or set up a closed NG if you desired.
That isdiotic avoidance of the issue was discussed during the RFD.
See <slrn9fl4sa....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>.
> YOUR freedoms were in no way impinged, instead you sought to
> REMOVE the right to speak, from others.
Crap.
----snip----
> > > - attempting to pre-empt a suggestion that ALL NG members participate
> > > in a process to develop an FAQ,
> >
> > That's another lie. In fact, Guano is the one who attempted pre-emption
> > of the FAQ.
>
> The first mention of a FAQ proposal to the NG was made by Che
Which is why preemption fits.
> in his post of 7/3/2000 where he clearly invited
> *universal participation* :
The proposal was premature. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked
Questions. There weren't any at that point in time.
----snip----
> > We never did see Gary's submission included in your fake fack, Guano.
>
> That is the height of hypocrisy, after they rejected his proposal
> for an open, inclusive FAQ, and foreshadowing their closed,
> exclusive, hegemonic hijack of his proposal, Che decided on
> a tactical response, beat them to the task, created the Original FAQ,
The fake fack.
Readers will note the admission that it was a sole effort by Guano
(self-servingly couched, but an admission, nontheless).
> and invited submissions.
>
> Gary's 'submission' was an attack in the vein of Neds 'fake fack'
> slander.
And you call *others* humourless. What a hypocrite.
----snip----
> > > - systematically driving altrernate views from the NG until their
> > > tactics were met with equally strong measures.
> >
> > That's another lie. A typical example of Guano accusing others of
> > his own villainies.
>
> Dirtmouth Rays vicious and profane attack set the tone,
> and Lisa and her cronies supported it, just because it
> was directed at Che, the fox.
A repetition of one of his slanders against Lisa. She welcomed
Ray after his difficulties in getting access to the group; she
did *not* welcome or support his language. Her welcome to Ray
had nothing to do with Guano.
As to her "cronies", I and others smacked Guano for slagging her
off for welcoming him.
> > > This is old news to those who know the NG history, but if you want
> > > references to the relevant posts I am happy to oblige.
> >
> > > You will find many cited events covered in the aus.culture.true-blue
> > > FAQ
> >
> > The correct description of that coverage is "defamation".
>
> =*= And you haven't taken action because you are lying
> and would lose your shirt.
We'll see.
> > > at the official website http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
> >
> > That's another lie. There is *no* official act-b FAQ.
>
> Funny how Ned has a different lie for every occasion, eh?:
A different opinion depending on circumstances. As ususal, Guano
misrepresents the facts. I went along with "official" for the FAQ
at http://www.aussie-culture.net/faq.html because I didn't know
any better. I withdrew from that when ausadmin advised us that
"official" is inappropriate for newsgroup FAQs.
----snip----
> > > Here is a sample of my contributions to the NG, including original
> > > works,
> >
> > Tch. Shame on you, Guano. Shouldn't you invite Tristan to make
> > his own selection?
>
> Like you do above? "See my message
> <slrn9j42me....@arthur.valhalla.net.au>" but in your case
> its a personal attack! Flamin hypocrite!
Wrong again, liar. Your "sample" is aimed at convincing "Tristan"
what a postitive and contributory poster you are. For that purpose,
you should leave the selection to him. What I did was point to
evidence of your bad behaviour. Different functions, different
procedures. Yours violated natural justice, mine served it.
----snip----
> > > I invite you to also observe the responses, and draw your own
> > > conclusions:
> >
> > They should be interesting. I classify the eight posts as follows:
----snip----
> > Off charter (political): 4
> > Containing gratuious attacks: 2
> > Worthy or seemingly so: 2
> >
> > I responeded to one of the "worthy" posts with a question,
> > but it was never answered, despite repetition.
>
> What a complete arsehole, he wants to control
> what others may say AND demands they respond to
> his interogatories! =*=
Liar.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > That must give you some insight into the experience of those under
> > > ceaseless, slanderous attack
>
> I have posted details of over 200 posts in which you
> slandered Larry Cook.
You have posted allegations that I slandered him..
That fact is that I wrongly identified you as him. If that's slander
it'll be because your behaviour is so abominable.
> You provide no evidence of alleged
> slander by me.
Ooh, okay. How about this, from your message
<9617651d.02030...@posting.google.com>?
"you ... began to accuse anyone talking about this matter of being
part of a conspiracy!"
and
"Lots of posts with you abusing people for not sharing your views".
and
"Lots of thinly veiled anti-ethnic posts".
and
"You got caught lying about Lev".
All lies. All challenged for evidence: without response.
And that's just one post.
> > Thus spake he who has engaged in ceaaseless slanderous attacks on
> > people, seemingly for no other reason than that they contest his
> > ceaseless slanderous attacks on people (though it is my contention
> > that the reason is his resentment at their failure to pay him the
> > reverence his sad little ego demands).
> >
> > > by a small group of PHONies pushing
> > > an agenda of racism and xenophobia.
> >
> > Thus spake the PHON reject.
>
> Having never applied for PHON membership, never
> supported them, or had any association other than
> criticising them, this statement by you is a lie,
> and you cannot provide substantiation, becasue there is none.
Check my message <slrn8rpg61....@messy.apex.net.au>, liar:
> * Batshit Boy (as Che Guano) wrote in <39B794DD...@my-deja.com>:
> * >
> * > With their attempt to take over the aus.culture.true-blue newsgroup
> * > foiled by the action of a singlue trueblue guerilla fighter, and
> * > their Front, the Townsville Taliban, in disarray, One Nation
> * > has decided to take the advice he gave them over two years ago:
> *
> * So *that's* why you hate them: you tried to tell them what to do and
> * they knocked you back.
> *
> * BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
> *
> * Guano's a PHON reject!
Deduced from your own bragging, Guano. Live with it.
Ferdie
Thats my sexual preference fagarse, you homophobe,
Ferdie
> They always used to tell me 'judge not lest yet be judged'.
>
Ferdie
fasgnadh
sick pornographers feel it's their right to
post their filth into every family NG?
Where are the true-blues who will take a stand
for some decency?
When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
might have children looking for material on Australian
culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
and attacked me. 8^o
_______________________________
From: "Ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting website
Message-ID: <ylTn8.1169$Go6.1...@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:06:41 +1100
...
Dont get too excited
http://www.goatse.cx/
_______________________
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting website
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-31 06:08:55 PST
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrnaab3tb....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
> fasgnadh wrote
> in <9617651d.02032...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Ferdie" wrote:
> > >
> > > You're homophobic
> >
> > Because I object to you posting personal ads containing
> > perverted graphics of your well reamed anus into a NG children
> > might access?
>
> Quit the posturing, you freak.
Most of us decent true-blues are GENUINELY sickened by your
anal obsessive mate posting links to vile pornography in
a NG you and your friends have said you want to attract schoolkids to.
_______________________
From: Ferdie (fer...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting website
Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
View this article only
________________________
Why should decent folk, especially those claiming to be
true-blue aussies, put up with perverts who claim its
their 'sexual preference' to post vile pornography links
into general Usenet, without any warning of its revolting
'adult' content, and where children may easily click on
the url he dangles with the enticement "don't get too excited"
ugh, sick mongrels, the pair of them!
Where is the protest from Neville Duguid, Rebecca, Ned Latham
and all the other hypocrites who attack those they disagree with
over ideology, or minor and contested issues like crossposting,
or allegedly 'off topic' posts. They describe that diversity of
views as 'disruption, and yet they are silent, or in Neds case
actively supportive of such shocking filth in open NGs they
have said they want to be used by children!
I am certain this is in breach of any decent ISP's Terms of
Service, but then, some of the creepier rockspiders seem to have
located ISP's run by moral defectives like themselves.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
>
> sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> post their filth into every family NG?
Quit the posturing, you freak. You set the tone of this group.
You're the hypocritical thug who ranted about "freedom of speech"
when we protested about the filth you and your gang of goons were
polluting it with. You're the vicious agitator who dragged in a
whole swag of dropins with no interest in act-b with your lies
and misrepresentation about the moderation proposal to stuff the
ballot with their votes and defeat it.
Or have you had a change of heart? Will you support a proposal
for moderation of the group?
Tristan
I am going to try to be (relatively) brief, only because I don't want the
message sprawling out
of control. You suggest that I have deliberately ignored some of your
points. This is not true.
I am simply trying to condense my replies. But if there is something I miss
that you want answered,
plese feel free to mention it.
> Then you will understand my impatience with your argument of
> moral equivalence, based as it is on limited knowledge of the
> background.
>
> Let us try and do this systematically, as I now have sufficient
> answers from you to structure the ethical issues:
>
> We have agrement that pacifism is an inadequate response.
>
> I argue that I am shelling Berlin to crush fascism.
>
> So far you have spoke in generalities about the desirability
> of peace over war. But once the sudatenland is taken, and
> the tanks are rolling across Belgium and into France and Poland?
>
> What do you imagine the response of the allies to your
> philosophical proposition would be, IN THE MIDST OF THE WAR?
> Or to your distaste that we are (metaphorically) firing at them?
>
> Now that is argument by analogy, but I am not firing anything
> except bullets of truth, logical land mines, and psychological
> counter measures.
>
> Key proposition: We are past appeasement with these people,
> their motives are clear, their actions documented,
> therefore we prosecute the matter WITH UTMOST VIGOR,
> and the only relevant questions now are 'is our cause just'?
> and 'how can we best win'?
Even under such dire circumstances there must be moral constraints to one's
tactics.
Here - in the newsgroups - you are fighting a war of ideas. If these people
are fascists,
as you suggest, then I put it to you that, in any discourse dominated by the
play of Reason,
socialist arguments will always win over fascist arguments. If, however,
you allow the battle
to degenerate, and for emotional themes to become dominant, then Reason
itself is marginalised.
Here, then, is where fascists and their ilk can gain the upper hand: when
they are playing upon
peoples prejudices, and their fears. From what I have read, I cannot
discern whether your opponents
here are fascists or not, but I am accepting your propositions for now for
the sake of argument.
The other problem, in allowing the brutalisation of a struggle, is that
innocent people are inevitably
hurt. The powers that be, across the entire political spectrum, care nothing
for freedom of speech or
individual autonomy. They deal in straight power concepts. They will speak
of 'autonomy' and 'liberty'
on the one hand, and excercise a policy of 'he who is not (entirely) with me
is against me' in practice.
Those who are truly autonomous thus become the target of a campaign that can
be described as nothing
other than psychological warfare and Terror. Perhaps you think you know who
'the real enemy' is.
And perhaps you are right in claiming that 'the enemy' is already engaging
in a brutalisation of the struggle beyond the bounds of liberal intellectual
debate. But in this regard I would urge caution. Many have claimed that
Stalin was paranoid. Others have pointed to a systematic campaign of
wrecking and subversion in the Soviet Union during Stalin's Terror. Both
are right. Stalin responded to REAL wrecking and subterfuge with a campaign
of Terror against friend and foe alike. And so it was, then, that his total
control was consolidated through terror and fear. I put it to you though,
that at least half of those 'liquidated' in the Terror - if not more - were
innocent. Kontratieff - a famous Marxist economist now widely used by
World Systems analysts, was one of those exiled and defamed in the 30s
Purges. It is always the case under regimes of Terror the the autonomous
and the talented are 'purged' and defamed in order to ensure the discipline,
comformity and mediocrity that stems from Terror. Khruschev's so-called
'secret speech' merely scraped 'the tip of the iceberg' so to speak. And ye
t, to cover up the crimes of Stalinist Terror, and maintain the perceived
legitimacy of those responsible, these peoples innocence was never
recognised. The same sort of thing goes on in today's Left on a constant
basis.
I know that no-one is suggesting you are doing anything of the sort - but I
put it to you that when the political struggle is brutalised, these kind of
crimes become inevitable. I have suffered as a result of 'Purge-style'
tactics from former 'comrades' myself. It is not a betrayal I am ever
likely to forgive - especially since those concerned continue to lie about
me, and deny their actions to this very day.
> As I told you, and you have snipped and evaded, they sought to
> control and silence an open NG, they claimed to speak for all,
> they engaged in months of character assasination, forging posts,
> slander of Larry Cook and cyberstalking his children, and even
> offline stalking. In return I mock , dissect, expose, demolish
> and riduicule. Persuade me it is an immoderate response.
Even if what you say is true, you are better revealing their actions and -
if possible - presenting proof.
You will find that - if you retain the moral high ground, and expose the
filth of this world for what it is, then
those who engage in filth will find themselves marginalised as their less
hard-core supporters shrink away
from that kind of brutality which, frankly, they find repulsive.
> > Personally, I might refer to myself as a liberal socialist - amongst
other
> > things. By this I indicate support for many so-called 'liberal rights',
but
> > without the liberal preoccupation with Property, and liberal
> > constitutionalist delusions as to the nature of the State.
> >
> > As to the conflict I am observing in aus.politics and
> > aus.culture.true-blue - I finds the depths to which contributers are
sinking
> > on both sides disgusting.
>
> I find your vague innuendo to be disgusting.
I am not making any vague innuendo. I see both sides in
aus.culture.true-blue engaging in character
assassination and harrassment. I find this kind of brutalisation of debate
disgusting. That is all I am
suggesting -nothing more. I don't know what you think I was suggesting.
Perhaps you should say.
Once again, even if your enemies have engaged in a brutalisation of the
struggle themselves, responding in kind is not necessarily the best strategy
in response.
> Some of these thugs slandered a Monash academic on feeble
> and spurious grounds and then, having incited hatred of him,
> linked to his kids.
Yes, and I had people saying that I was a paedophile, a wrecker and God only
knows what else also - simply because they wanted a way of disposing of
someone they could not totally control through patronage, flattery, or
darker means. I was stalked, received death threats, and had to cope with
sickening innuendo and psychological games on an almost daily basis. I had
people pulling out huge syringes while I was on the train and telling me 'I
was dead'.
If you know absolutely - without any doubt - who is responsible for
harrassment, stalking, and slander, then perhaps you are justified in doing
whatever is necessary. I put it to you, though, that the newsgroup is not
the forum in which to wage this struggle. By allowing the discourse HERE to
be brutalised, you marginalise Reason itself, and thus make a leftist
position untenable.
On the other hand, be absolutely sure you are in possession of all the facts
before you strike. And don't even assume you can trust those closest to you.
I was betrayed by 'comrades' I once would have trusted with my life -
because they could not control and manipulate me. Now God only knows what
they are saying about me behind my back to cover their deceitful, traitorous
arses. If I was a complete pacifist, as you suggest, I wouldn't dream of
smashing their faces in with a baseball bat.
> Thus I find Neds sudden roleplay of obsequious agreeability
> with you to be deeply suspicious. It suggests contrivance.
>
> In short, I don't trust you.
Fine. I don't trust anyone in this fucking world after what I've been
through. What hope is there when some in the Left wallow in the same filth
as the Right, and engage in campaigns of slander and harrassment that,
frankly, would do ASIO or the FBI proud? In the real world, neither Left or
Right value autonomy or liberty. The prevailing interests behind the
ideological facades want armies of 'yes men and women' compromised in some
fashion, or kept under control through patronage or favours. Those who are
independent - those who are true idealists - are 'disposed of' as a threat
to the 'discipline' of the literally criminal modes of organisation that
pervade the entire political spectrum. Meanwhile, the ideals and objectives
of socialism are systematically sold out for the purposes of temporary
political advantage. We used to call this kind of thing 'opportunism'.
> So I had quickly determined that once you had chosen between
> pacifism / justice then the only issue between us would be
> 'just cause', and I began to give you details of the annexation
> of Sudatenland (takeover of the NG), the removal of citizenship
> rights for Jews, homosexuals, and trade unionists (declaring
> themselves to 'speak for all of us'), Krystalnacht (slandering
> and cyberstalking Larry Cook and his kids) ....
>
> but you have shown no interest in the salient facts. Hmmmmm.
If you are ABSOLUTELY sure of your facts, then wage your struggle however it
is necessary outside the bounds of this newsgroup. Once Reason becomes
marginalised here, however, you have already lost.
Inevitably, though, amidst this brutalisation, you will end up destroying
SOMEONE who is totally innocent.
You will be SURE that you were right - that the person was a 'wrecker', an
'informer' or God only knows what - but you will be wrong. When this happens
(and it will), don't suppose you can maintain the 'moral high ground' unless
you are willing to own up.
> > I don't particularly like to see cruelty to either 'pigs' - as you
> > refer to Ned - or children.
>
> Interesting, and very revealing.
Yes - perhaps it is revealing - or perhaps I am probing around in the dark.
Who knows?
> Having passed beyond the larval stage we expect a little
> more robustness, (and significantly greater evil) to justify all
> the moral huffing and puffing you are twanging on about.
Unfortunately, that brings all kinds of disgusting imagery to mind - and
much worse besides.
Of course, were you some kind of larvae, I would suppose you'd be fearful of
ending up on the
dinner plate of a spider. In the Natural world a brutal death can only be
put off for so long.
Which, I suppose, is one of the reasons I find the Natural world so
disturbing.
> A man posts over 200 vicious, slandering attacks on an innocent
> person, completely blameless. He assaults his character with
> vile abuse, and having incited hatred of the man, then posts
> links to an image of his victim's kids.
> When confronted with the INSANITY on which he based his ill
> judged assaults, he refuses to express any remorse.
>
> And you, you dickless wonder, pontificate about the inappropriateness
> of calling such a gutless moral defective and shitpig, a pig? B^p
You see, though, there is nothing 'essential' about a pig to suggest a pig
must necessarily be a crypto-fascist.
The pig could be a lifelong internationalist and socialist. How would you
feel about the pig, then?
Which is the problem with 'race wars'.
> > and others called you a 'child' -
> > and you copped it in the neck from both sides?
>
> I would like to express deep sympathy for your manifest
> suffering, but unfortunately there are reasons I may
> not speak.
I'm sure. Although it would be nice if you would speak, even with a
different ID from an anonymous
remailer. It would be interesting to hear from someone who could offer any
additional insight.
> > Actually, I was hoping you could tell me which you identified with.
>
> Yes, you love to arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.
>
> But I am inclined to whimper that you have called me a wolf,
> a big bad wolf at that! And while the pig is a noble and
> treasured animal to the Chinese, the Wolf is a transmitter
> of rabies. Oh, woe is me. How could you be so cruel! 8...(
>
> And I have only just got over the trauma of my girlfriend,
> Little Red's, untimely end as Lupus Lunch..
> you heartless bastard!
>
> I don't 'identify' with either, or any.
>
> The Ents, possibly.
The Ents? So now you're saying you're one of the Trees in the Forest.
As for Little Red, I suppose it could at least be said that she was Happy
while she was alive.
Although there are those who claim greater wisdom is to be found in Sorrow.
As to what I am concerned with though - well, I am concerned with justice in
this world - which I think can only be achieved on the basis of accepting
that - first and foremost - we are part of the same race: the human race.
Well, most of us anyway. :) From here the prospects of international
socialism are improved expontentially. I persist with my old ideals in the
hope that I may yet find meaning amidst the insanity which unfolds around
me.
Apart from this, though, my concern is to discover 'the real me', all the
better that *I* might actually survive.
And finally, it is mine to despair over the fact that the ideology upon
which I based over twelve years' struggle seems to have little or no meaning
for the interests who effectively colonise and manipulate the movements to
which I have devoted my life: people who would gladly swap one ideology for
another if it happened to suit their purposes.
For me socialism is non negotiable.
> You want people to follow your moral leadership into tears
> and despair? B^p
Tears and depair seem perhaps the only moral response to this world - which
you seem to know at least
as well as me.
> (Now, would you care to be SPECIFIC, and illustrate
> WITH AN EXAMPLE OR TWO just which TACTICS you refer too?
> And perhaps outline the context in which I used them, and the
> contexts, if any, in which you might consider such tactics..
Your poem about Ned is obviously an exercise in psychological warfare -
whose basis in events outside this newsgroup I can only guess at. If your
aim it ideological victory in this forum, it is not a tactic I believe is
likely to succeed.
> > > > And so, should the rape victim 'respect' the rapist?
>
> Was that one too hard?
Now you are simply point scoring. I should know the answer to that better
than most - certain experiences I have suffered amounting to nothing less
than a 'rape' of sorts.
> I suspect there were fifth columnists destroying morale
> by suggesting to the troops they should not call the
> Nazi's pigs, even if they were slaughtering millions in ovens.
So, that is what I am now, is it? I suppose you're going to send me to the
Gulag, or have me quietly
liquidated? I have already explained what the product of this kind of
paranoia is. If you want to take this kind of approach, just be ready to
take ownership of the consequences of your actions.
> Define 'politics of personal destruction'
I have already given you an account of what I have been through. I would
call THAT the
'politics of personal destruction'.
> The stalking of Larry Cook, Che's fight through the TIO
> when the taliban conspired to pressure his ISP to cancel
> his account, Theodore Kaldis posting pictures on the net
> of the house in which one of his Usenet opponent lives,
> threats o physical violence... all these forms of
> intimidation come to mind.
>
> Or do you mean the heinous crime of calling such neo-
> fascist thugs, neo fascist thugs?
Yes, well that sounds like the 'politics of personal destruction' also,
although your little poem
suggests there has been a lot more going on than 'calling neo-fascist thugs
neo-fascist thugs'.
Once again, if a brutalisation of the struggle becomes inevitable, remember
that you are not doing your
struggle any good by dragging it into this forum.
> What part of opposing racist bigots via robust discussion
> do you claim threatens the liberal consensus?
>
> THose that propose illiberal discrimination stand
> outside the liberal consensus.
>
> They should be encouraged to step back within it,
> or be engaged and opposed.
Yes, they should be engaged and opposed - but it is a matter of HOW they
should be engaged and opposed. The MEANS by which they should be opposed
is dependant on the level of threat they pose
to the liberal consensus. (ie: civil liberties, not property)
On an interesting aside though, it is productive to take the example of
France, where the National Front regularly polls 10% of the vote. Because
the the Right wing constituency is split, and the Gaulists won't tolerate an
alliance with the fascists, the Conservative side of politics is utterly
paralysed. Thus we have Jospin in alliance with the Communists and the
Greens. Le Pen is marginalised, and even Chirac finds himself having to
take a stand against the neo-liberal agenda that was recently pushed in
Barcelona.
By all means, we should be aiming to isolate the extreme Rightists even
further.. Certainly it would be a disaster if they managed a successful
challenge to the Conservative mainstream. But it's funny how creeping
fascism can sometimes even work in the interests of the Left. That is - so
long as it is effectively CONTAINED and ISOLATED. (ie: as opposed to a
Stalinist 'first Hitler then us' kind of attitude)
> > I have been active in the Left since I was 16 - that is, 12
> > years.
> and my age guess was reasonably accurate.
almost 9 years off actually.
> > What is 'superficial' about my position?
> Well, while you baulked at 'superficial, you Passed Over
> 'broad left' without complaint. ;-)
>
> "This essay, and other papers can be found at the Australian Broad
> Left NetworkYahoo" was a reasonable indicator.
>
> Your Marx is better than most.
Well, it should be after 12 years. :)
> I've read your reposts from (or some one you quote, we can't tell)
> on liquidating social democracy and Edward Said
The 'binationalism' and 'liquidating social democracy' articles are entirely
my own work.
I have been trying for ages to get these - and other - articles published in
the mainstream press -
but without any luck... I sent the binational article to just about every
daily in the country over a
week ago - but no response. I am studying to be a teacher, but I think I
would rather write for
a living. I think, though, that my fierce independence serves as something
of an obstacle to this.
> It was Ironbark, assisted by Che and taken up by Lev,
> who campaigned about the denial of water to those folk
> in high summer, (opposed by the racists and bigots here)
> which resulted in Andrew Rule going to investigate,
> hearing the stories about Clarke, and subsequently
> winning three journalism awards.
>
> B^D
Interesting. And what do you think of Clarke, btw? Do you believe the
allegations?
> Dare to struggle, dare to win, means risking dirty hands.
Within moral constraints... And those constraints, for me, include 'playing
hard ball' only
with those who 'played hard ball with you first'. And, what is more, if by
chance you target
an innocent - you should be willing to own up to your mistake, rather than
destroying that
person to cover your arse.
> > Macabre speculation, I know, but interesting nevertheless.
>
> Are you feeling hungry? 8^)
I sincerely hope it never comes to that.
> > It is also difficult when your
> > 'comrades' indentify anyone who is independent or who thinks for
themselves
> > as 'the enemy' also. (the old: 'if you're not with us, you're against
us
> > line) When I am truly in a position to judge what is right, THEN I will
do
> > whatever is necessary - within the appropriate moral constraints.
>
> I make no apologies for probing, testing and being suspicious.
Fine. Like I said - I don't trust anyone. But there are those who go a lot
futher than
'probing' and 'testing'.
> > The most important thing is to establish your moral
> > superiority - and at the moment I don't think you're effectively doing
that.
>
> That's because i don't believe in, or aim for, moral superiority,
> and mistrust those who believe they posess it.
>
> "o Lord, protect us from those to whom you speak directly" ;-)
>
> I assess, weigh, determine, judge act and live with consequences.
> without ever assuming that I have certainty.
Actually, I sometimes wonder if The Lord has some kind of special loathing
for me. I can find little other explanation for the past few years. Still,
I try to hang on to hope.
Most of us rarely have any certainty. But certainly the ethical impulse is,
by far, the most noble impulse.
And if we do not fight against injustice, oppression, hate - on ethical
grounds, then why do we take any stand at all? Otherwise is it not all
nothing but a facade? If you do not fight for something because it is
right, then why fight at all? Survival is about the only other reason I can
think of - but that, for instance, is not necessarily grounds for genuinely
opposing fascism... THAT has an IDEOLOGICAL basis, which in turn must have
an ETHICAL basis - if it is to have any meaning at all.
Tristan
Ned Latham
----snip----
> The 'binationalism' and 'liquidating social democracy' articles are
> entirely my own work. I have been trying for ages to get these -
> and other - articles published in the mainstream press - but without
> any luck... I sent the binational article to just about every daily
> in the country over a week ago - but no response.
I can see the mainstream press declining those articles because they
consider them too deep for their readership, but also because you
are explicit about writing as a Marxist theorist. Too many people
see "Marx" and think "failed ideology" without looking further.
> I am studying to
> be a teacher, but I think I would rather write for a living. I think,
> though, that my fierce independence serves as something of an obstacle
> to this.
As a teacher, you'll have to repress your independence anyway, so the
choice, as I see it, is simply a matter of deciding between the regular
salary of a teacher and the fulfillment of being a writer.
Unless, that is, you can combine them without too much conflict.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Has this nation become so degraded that
> sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> post their filth into every family NG?
> Where are the true-blues who will take a stand
> for some decency?
>
> When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> might have children looking for material on Australian
> culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> and attacked me. 8^o
I don't think anyone finds that link attractive.
As for pornography, pornographers have every right to post -- *in porn groups*.
Posting porn links to groups where the material is not topical is an abuse,
and worth reporting.
--
Donovan
Tristan
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrnaajaer....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> "Tristan" wrote in <SIfq8.11241$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > The 'binationalism' and 'liquidating social democracy' articles are
> > entirely my own work. I have been trying for ages to get these -
> > and other - articles published in the mainstream press - but without
> > any luck... I sent the binational article to just about every daily
> > in the country over a week ago - but no response.
>
> I can see the mainstream press declining those articles because they
> consider them too deep for their readership, but also because you
> are explicit about writing as a Marxist theorist. Too many people
> see "Marx" and think "failed ideology" without looking further.
Well, the articles are not explicitly Marxist - they are written from a
broadly left perspective.
And I am not really an orthodox marxist myself. Rather I remain strongly
INFLUENCED by marxism, just as I am INFLUENCED by liberal rights discourse.
Thus, then, you might detect a strong Habermasian influence. Critical
theory is, in many ways, a modernisation of Marxism, and blending of Marxism
with liberalism. It is a tough call, though, to say at which point one
'becomes' or 'stops being' a Marxist.
Is Habermas a Marxist, for instance? Some would say yes, some would say no.
I have renounced the Marxist definition of socialism and the Marxist (ie:
teleological and materialist) view of history. I have retained the Marxist
passion for radical democracy, the Marxist critique of alienation, expanded
reproduction and capitalist crisis, and the Marxist critique of liberal
constitutionalism. And there is much else besides I haven't mentioned. But
you see, there are plenty of 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I
am engaged in 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And
yet my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as opposed to
merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist discourse.
Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical social
theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite frankly,
'the real world doesn't work like that'.
Anyway - you know, if 'The Age' can print an article of Boris Frankel's -
who is an excellent Australian social theorist and radical, and who has
roundly condemned 'Post-Marxist Populism', then I think they should be able
to print material from a democratic socialist such as myself.
regards,
Tristan
Tristan
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrnaajaer....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> "Tristan" wrote in <SIfq8.11241$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> choice, as I see it, is simply a matter of deciding between the regular
> salary of a teacher and the fulfillment of being a writer.
>
> Unless, that is, you can combine them without too much conflict.
Well, I think there is some room for independence as a teacher - depending
on the reaction of the school council.... I think a teacher should be able
to express his/her opinions in class - so long as opposing opinions are made
available, and so long as it is made ABSOLUTELY clear that marking will
based on the quality of the work - NOT the views expressed in any piece of
work.
There is also room for a radical citizenship agenda in so far as critical
and independent thought and action can be emphasised at all points.
Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and political
literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
ideologies, social movements, value systems.. They should have an active
outlook on citizenship, and a desire to actively involve themselves in
collective decision-making processes - whether in a political party, social
movement, NGO - whatever...
THAT'S the kind of agenda I'd like to bring to teaching, and from where I
stand it seems perfectly reasonable.
Tristan
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "Tristan" wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > The 'binationalism' and 'liquidating social democracy' articles are
> > > entirely my own work. I have been trying for ages to get these -
> > > and other - articles published in the mainstream press - but without
> > > any luck... I sent the binational article to just about every daily
> > > in the country over a week ago - but no response.
> >
> > I can see the mainstream press declining those articles because they
> > consider them too deep for their readership, but also because you
> > are explicit about writing as a Marxist theorist. Too many people
> > see "Marx" and think "failed ideology" without looking further.
>
>
> Well, the articles are not explicitly Marxist - they are written from a
> broadly left perspective.
Mmm. Looks like I assumed too much from your "Thoughts on Marxism"
article.
> And I am not really an orthodox marxist myself. Rather I remain
> strongly INFLUENCED by marxism, just as I am INFLUENCED by liberal
> rights discourse. Thus, then, you might detect a strong Habermasian
> influence.
Hardly. All I know of him is what you wrote on his "Public Sphere".
> Critical theory is, in many ways, a modernisation of Marxism, and
> blending of Marxism with liberalism. It is a tough call, though,
> to say at which point one 'becomes' or 'stops being' a Marxist.
> Is Habermas a Marxist, for instance? Some would say yes, some
> would say no.
How many would take the time to think about the usefulness of such
labelling?
> I have renounced the Marxist definition of socialism and the Marxist
> (ie: teleological and materialist) view of history. I have retained
> the Marxist passion for radical democracy,
Ooohh! You interest me strangely. But what do *you* mean by "radical
democracy"? For my view, see <98542790...@draal.apex.net.au>.
> the Marxist critique of
> alienation, expanded reproduction and capitalist crisis, and the
> Marxist critique of liberal constitutionalism.
Erk. All those labels. I can only guess at their meanings through
the English language, which no doubt is not a good guide.
> And there is much
> else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as opposed
> to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist discourse.
The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
> Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical social
> theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite frankly,
> 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through; ie, all of
them except Macchiavelli's.
> Anyway - you know, if 'The Age' can print an article of Boris Frankel's -
> who is an excellent Australian social theorist and radical, and who has
> roundly condemned 'Post-Marxist Populism', then I think they should be able
> to print material from a democratic socialist such as myself.
Guess so. Good luck.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > As a teacher, you'll have to repress your independence anyway, so the
> > choice, as I see it, is simply a matter of deciding between the regular
> > salary of a teacher and the fulfillment of being a writer.
> >
> > Unless, that is, you can combine them without too much conflict.
>
> Well, I think there is some room for independence as a teacher -
> depending on the reaction of the school council....
Therein lieth the rub.
> I think a teacher should be able to express his/her opinions in class
Depending on your opinions, that could land you in some very hot water.
Last year a German history teacher expressed an opinion to her class
about the attack on the WTC that got her suspended (don't know what
happened to her after that).
See message <6b02215a.01092...@posting.google.com>.
> - so long as opposing opinions are made available, and so long as it
> is made ABSOLUTELY clear that marking will based on the quality of the
> work - NOT the views expressed in any piece of work.
Ah, there you go, dipping your toes in hot water again. What happens if
you're required to teach an orthodoxy that's under contest by a vilified
minority?
(Imagine yourself as a teacher of astronomy in 15th century Italy. Would
you put the Galilean view to your students?)
> There is also room for a radical citizenship agenda in so far as critical
> and independent thought and action can be emphasised at all points.
> Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and political
> literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
> ideologies, social movements, value systems.. They should have an active
> outlook on citizenship, and a desire to actively involve themselves in
> collective decision-making processes - whether in a political party, social
> movement, NGO - whatever...
>
> THAT'S the kind of agenda I'd like to bring to teaching, and from where I
> stand it seems perfectly reasonable.
I'm very dubious about it. I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
mathematics, and language skills (clear thinking and clear communication).
School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts. Parts which,
moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
Of course, if the prevailing orthodoxy agrees with you...
fasgnadh
...
> You suggest that I have deliberately ignored some of your
> points. This is not true.
You missed the most critical, and repeated one...
> I am simply trying to condense my replies. But if there is something I miss
> that you want answered, plese feel free to mention it.
..the one that seperates justice and due process from innuendo:
"When accusations are made, formal charges should be laid,
specifying the nature of the alleged offence, and therefore
giving the accused an opportunity to mount a defence.
So, if you include me in that comment, please provide
examples of what you find objectionable and why."
Let us deal with it concretely at last:
>
>
> > Then you will understand my impatience with your argument of
> > moral equivalence, based as it is on limited knowledge of the
> > background.
> >
> > Let us try and do this systematically, as I now have sufficient
> > answers from you to structure the ethical issues:
> >
> > We have agrement that pacifism is an inadequate response.
This is important, as earlier you were lamenting the mere existance
of conflict, and now we have agreement that sometimes it is
necessary and unavoidable.
Now we must determine under what circumstances you WILL act,
in what ways, and what is a 'just war'
And examine my contention that appeasment traditionally
fails with neo-nazis, and has already been shown to do so
in this 'just war':
> >
> > Key proposition: We are past appeasement with these people,
> > their motives are clear, their actions documented,
> > therefore we prosecute the matter WITH UTMOST VIGOR,
> > and the only relevant questions now are 'is our cause just'?
> > and 'how can we best win'?
>
>
> Even under such dire circumstances there must be moral constraints to one's
> tactics.
Later in the post you detailed at least one of those
'moral constraints' you believe to be important:
"those constraints, for me, include 'playing hard ball' only
with those who 'played hard ball with you first'"
So now we need to see your defintion of the 'hard ball' you complain
is being 'played by both sides', and in particular, your single
example in response to my repeated request for a SPECIFIC
charge in my case...
> Here - in the newsgroups - you are fighting a war of ideas. If these people
> are fascists,
> as you suggest, then I put it to you that, in any discourse dominated by the
> play of Reason,
> socialist arguments will always win over fascist arguments.
And I keep telling you, that is already the case, Ned has repeatedly
been defeated, and that defeat has been by reason, close
argument, strategic planning, tactical superiority, irony
humour, satire and sending the bugger up. ;-)
You missed many of the key exchanges, but his cult is
severely shrunken, and his plans completely routed.
The method is successful.
I keep asking you to show where you think I use invalid
and/or ineffective means, but so far without success, having only
one example, a poem, which we should therefore examine closely, below:
> > As I told you, and you have snipped and evaded, they sought to
> > control and silence an open NG, they claimed to speak for all,
> > they engaged in months of character assasination, forging posts,
> > slander of Larry Cook and cyberstalking his children, and even
> > offline stalking. In return I mock , dissect, expose, demolish
> > and riduicule. Persuade me it is an immoderate response.
>
>
> Even if what you say is true, you are better revealing their actions and -
> if possible - presenting proof.
Thats been done, and their plans for hegemonic control, defeated.
What is now being dealt with is their slander, using precisely the
methods you endorse.... read on.
> > > As to the conflict I am observing in aus.politics and
> > > aus.culture.true-blue - I finds the depths to which contributers are
> sinking
> > > on both sides disgusting.
> >
> > I find your vague innuendo to be disgusting.
>
>
> I am not making any vague innuendo.
You most certainly are.
You refer to the 'disgusting depths' that 'both sides' sink to.
Yet despite repeated requests to follow the rational process
you enjoin others to follow, you ***had not provided any evidence
to support the claim***.
Moreover, at this point, you snipped the explicit request for that
specific evidence:
"When accusations are made, formal charges should be laid,
specifying the nature of the alleged offence, and therefore
giving the accused an opportunity to mount a defence.
So, if you include me in that comment, please provide
examples of what you find objectionable and why."
Accusation without proof is innuendo.
It is YOU who is pontificating about the moral highground
and rational proof, isn't it?
You merely repeat that unsupported innuendo here:
> I see both sides in
> aus.culture.true-blue engaging in character
> assassination and harrassment. I find this kind of brutalisation of debate
> disgusting. That is all I am
> suggesting -nothing more. I don't know what you think I was suggesting.
> Perhaps you should say.
>
> Once again, even if your enemies have engaged in a brutalisation of the
> struggle themselves, responding in kind is not necessarily the best strategy
> in response.
.....
And yet when a SPECIFIC charge (ie verifiable) is presented,
you don't seek to test it, when surely the veracity of this
claim is essential to determining if in fact this is a case
justifying 'hardball'! 8^o
> > Some of these thugs slandered a Monash academic on feeble
> > and spurious grounds and then, having incited hatred of him,
> > linked to his kids.
>
>
> Yes, and I had people saying that I was a paedophile, a wrecker and God only
> knows what else also -
Are you saying that because you have been falsely accused
that all accusations are false?
Because, to those better informed than yourself, the evidence
in Neds case *has been presented*, I have summarized it for you,
and offered to point you to the relevant message-ids if you
wish to review the rational de-construction you keep urging
as 'the best tactic' B^p
My concern is twofold, you resist being SPECIFIC in your charges,
which makes it impossible to defend, and ignore a specific
(verifiable/falsifiable) charge which is salient to determining
if my response is measured and appropriate.
...
>
> If you know absolutely - without any doubt - who is responsible for
> harrassment, stalking, and slander, then perhaps you are justified in doing
> whatever is necessary.
Unless you are blind, you will have seen Ned admit to falsely
identifying Larry Cook, and to linking to the mans
children! B^D He simply excuses the first by saying that
all the slander directed at larry Cook was meant for me,
and that I have posted ABOUT his cyberstalking more
often than he cyberstalked! B^p
Beyond contempt.
> I put it to you, though, that the newsgroup is not
> the forum in which to wage this struggle.
Rubbish. The exposure of his lies and slander must be made
in the environment where people may be swayed by those lies and
slander. Other forums, legal etc, may be appropriate as well.
You want to fight fascism in the Arctic, where the fascists aren't,
rather than in the countries they occupy????
(BTW, the appropriate offline warnings were made)
> By allowing the discourse HERE to be brutalised,
How does confronting slander 'brutalise discourse'?
Again you characterise yourself as one who would 'fight' fascism
with no weapons at all, not even discourse.
.....
>
> And finally, it is mine to despair over the fact that the ideology upon
> which I based over twelve years' struggle seems to have little or no meaning
> for the interests who effectively colonise and manipulate the movements to
> which I have devoted my life: people who would gladly swap one ideology for
> another if it happened to suit their purposes.
perhaps you have tactical deficiencies.
Finally we come to the crux:
>
> > (Now, would you care to be SPECIFIC, and illustrate
> > WITH AN EXAMPLE OR TWO just which TACTICS you refer too?
> > And perhaps outline the context in which I used them, and the
> > contexts, if any, in which you might consider such tactics..
>
>
> Your poem about Ned is obviously an exercise in psychological warfare -
Is this the one you mean?
_____________________
#From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
#Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting website
#Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
#
#Date: 2002-03-25 03:02:08 PST
#...
#nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message
#news:<slrna9rrio....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
#
#snip to the chase
#
#>
#> Fool that I am, I haven't a clue, and my Voices are driving me mad.
#
#Now that your admitting your problems, Ned, the doctors are really glad! B^D
#
#> All of my posturing seems to fall through, and all of my lies turn out bad.
#
#but your plan to take ober aus culture true-blue was the worst you ever had! B^D
#
#> Somebody up there hates me, it is true: he seems to be just like my dad,
#
#"Everyone", "everywhere" hates you Ned, you are venomous, vile and quite mad.
#
#> Giving me stick and making me blue. Oh sob sob, boo hoo, this is sad.
#
#Giving you stick, and making you blue, makes the true-blues feel glad!
#
#>
#> Nobody loves me (poor hard-done-by me): they all give me trouble and woe,
#
#It's true you are widely despised, why don't you just pack up and go! B^)
#
#> And slag me with madness and savagery: they're horribly cruel and low.
#
#You slanderous troll, we whip you with TRUTH, now take your sockpuppets and blow!
#
#> Despite my superior mentality, and the high-sounding phrases I know,
#
#You can't open up your computer, a reliable source told us so! B^p
#
#> Heaven has started a conspiracy, to destroy me and bring me down low.
#
#You have always looked up to snakes bellies, there isn't much lower to go!
#
#>
#> Ned
#
#No need to sign your autobiographical work,
#we could all pick you from the descriptions! B^D
#And your Acronym obsessions!
_____________________________________________
That's your example of the 'politics of personal destruction'?
Satire is your idea of 'the brutalization of debate' which you
claim produces moral equivalence (with the 'other side' slandering
a bloke and then linking to his kids picture, seeking hegemonic
control of an open NG, cyberstalking on and offline...et al?
Two problems with that, sport,
1) it leaves us with the basic question
'When WOULD you start to actually oppose fascism?"
or consider the dastardly and heavyhanded use of retributive poetry? B^D
(rather than theorise without reference to the concrete reality)
2) As this is the only example of evidence you advance in support
of your indictment, can you explain why you find fault at all?
My savage poetic satire is wholly consistent with your own stated
position on operating " Within moral constraints... And
those constraints, for me, include 'playing hard ball' only
with those who 'played hard ball with you first'. "
Precisely the case with this one piece of evidence you offer for
my involvement in 'discourse brutalization'! 8^o
The satirical poem is, line by line, interleaved into,
and responding to, Neds own poetic hardball.
Q.E.D?
Unless you claim i wrote my response before his original ;^p
I think your whole position is seriously flawed.
......
>
> > The stalking of Larry Cook, Che's fight through the TIO
> > when the taliban conspired to pressure his ISP to cancel
> > his account, Theodore Kaldis posting pictures on the net
> > of the house in which one of his Usenet opponent lives,
> > threats o physical violence... all these forms of
> > intimidation come to mind.
> >
> > Or do you mean the heinous crime of calling such neo-
> > fascist thugs, neo fascist thugs?
>
>
> Yes, well that sounds like the 'politics of personal destruction' also,
Really? to me it sounds like plain speaking, and your
'politics of personal destruction' is a projection of your
own past truama, preventing you from analysing the situation
actually before you.
That may explain your lament about past tactical failures.
> although your little poem suggests there has been a lot more
> going on than 'calling neo-fascist thugs neo-fascist thugs'.
some of the things going on include moral constraint of the type
you profess at times, and not at others:
" And those constraints, for me, include 'playing hard ball' only
with those who 'played hard ball with you first'. " B^p
> Once again, if a brutalisation of the struggle becomes inevitable,
As it must when people persistantly avoid the pre-requisites for
justice and due process;
"When accusations are made, formal charges should be laid,
specifying the nature of the alleged offence, and therefore
giving the accused an opportunity to mount a defence."
and instead repeat innuendo:
"your little poem suggests there has been a lot more
going on than 'calling neo-fascist thugs neo-fascist thugs"
> remember that you are not doing your
> struggle any good by dragging it into this forum.
? the struggle has been with those who tried to assert
hegemonic control over this NG, where do you propose to fight it?
>
>
> > What part of opposing racist bigots via robust discussion
> > do you claim threatens the liberal consensus?
> >
> > THose that propose illiberal discrimination stand
> > outside the liberal consensus.
> >
> > They should be encouraged to step back within it,
> > or be engaged and opposed.
>
>
> Yes, they should be engaged and opposed - but it is a matter of HOW they
> should be engaged and opposed. The MEANS by which they should be opposed
> is dependant on the level of threat they pose
> to the liberal consensus. (ie: civil liberties, not property)
>
Why do you discount satire as a valid tactic and measured response?
>
> > It was Ironbark, assisted by Che and taken up by Lev,
> > who campaigned about the denial of water to those folk
> > in high summer, (opposed by the racists and bigots here)
> > which resulted in Andrew Rule going to investigate,
> > hearing the stories about Clarke, and subsequently
> > winning three journalism awards.
> >
> > B^D
>
> Interesting. And what do you think of Clarke, btw? Do you believe the
> allegations?
You invite me to brutalised discourse and character attacks? 8^o
> > Dare to struggle, dare to win, means risking dirty hands.
>
>
> Within moral constraints... And those constraints, for me, include 'playing
> hard ball' only
> with those who 'played hard ball with you first'.
B^) Now you are talking.
.....
> > > The most important thing is to establish your moral
> > > superiority - and at the moment I don't think you're
> > > effectively doing that.
any further thoughts in that direction, re hardball?
> >
> > That's because i don't believe in, or aim for, moral superiority,
> > and mistrust those who believe they posess it.
funny how often those reservations are confirmed.
> >
> > "o Lord, protect us from those to whom you speak directly" ;-)
> >
> > I assess, weigh, determine, judge act and live with consequences.
> > without ever assuming that I have certainty.
>
>
> Actually, I sometimes wonder if The Lord has some kind of special loathing
> for me.
He's trying to teach you how to play hardball perhaps.
> I can find little other explanation for the past few years.
Random events in an indifferent universe?
> Still, I try to hang on to hope.
Evolution offers historical support for doing so.
>
> Most of us rarely have any certainty. But certainly the ethical impulse is,
> by far, the most noble impulse.
Love is the Most Great Law.
> And if we do not fight against injustice, oppression, hate - on ethical
> grounds, then why do we take any stand at all?
And we need also to be prepared for attacks because we have taken that stand,
sometimes irrationally attacked.
> Otherwise is it not all nothing but a facade? If you do not fight for
> something because it is right, then why fight at all?
> Survival is about the only other reason I can
> think of - but that, for instance, is not necessarily grounds for genuinely
> opposing fascism... THAT has an IDEOLOGICAL basis, which in turn must have
> an ETHICAL basis - if it is to have any meaning at all.
Stick with the ethical imperative, survival is more instinctual.
I like the K.I.S.S. principle, by which some of these complex
ethical and social justice issues can be simplified as
A Fair Go For All.
When I see it denied, I act.
Peter Wilks
> Tristan <tris...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:0dUp8.7615$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9617651d.02033...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Tristan Ewins" <tris...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<8fzp8.4151$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > >
> > > "Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
> > >
> > > Another Telstra Bogpond Sock Puppet created to order on 22/3/2000
> > >
> > > Can't you morons try to make your PHONie spokes Orcs a little
> > > more plausible? B^D
> > >
> > > "Bring back Alain"! B^D
> >
> >
> > Oh - so now I'm a 'sock' am I? If you say so.
I can vouch for Tristan being fair dinkum, and not a ring in;
his article, "Giddens & Blair: Liquidating Social Democracy"
appeared on p 19 of the Oweek edition of Lots Wife, the Monash
University student newspaper.
He's a leftie allright, poring over the entrails since the Triumph
of Capitalism, and rightly (IMHO) asserting the need to 'resurrect
the radical critique of monopoly capitalism, ..reinstating the
debate on economic democracy' and ..'responding to the reality
of globalising capital'
The left meanwhile, has all the belly button contemplating,
inward looking, fractious, self absorbtion that has characterised
it since the stalinists and trots saw each other as the main enemy.
(of course the trots were right in that case)
Peter Wilks
> "Tristan" wrote in <E8jq8.11906$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > "Tristan" wrote:
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > The 'binationalism' and 'liquidating social democracy' articles are
> > > > entirely my own work. I have been trying for ages to get these -
> > > > and other - articles published in the mainstream press - but without
> > > > any luck... I sent the binational article to just about every daily
> > > > in the country over a week ago - but no response.
> > >
> > > I can see the mainstream press declining those articles because they
> > > consider them too deep for their readership, but also because you
> > > are explicit about writing as a Marxist theorist. Too many people
> > > see "Marx" and think "failed ideology" without looking further.
> >
> >
> > Well, the articles are not explicitly Marxist - they are written from a
> > broadly left perspective.
>
> Mmm. Looks like I assumed too much from your "Thoughts on Marxism"
> article.
Probably, having thoughts is not uniquely Marxist,
(it just often sems that way)
>
> > And I am not really an orthodox marxist myself. Rather I remain
> > strongly INFLUENCED by marxism, just as I am INFLUENCED by liberal
> > rights discourse. Thus, then, you might detect a strong Habermasian
> > influence.
>
> Hardly. All I know of him is what you wrote on his "Public Sphere".
>
> > Critical theory is, in many ways, a modernisation of Marxism, and
> > blending of Marxism with liberalism. It is a tough call, though,
> > to say at which point one 'becomes' or 'stops being' a Marxist.
> > Is Habermas a Marxist, for instance? Some would say yes, some
> > would say no.
>
> How many would take the time to think about the usefulness of such
> labelling?
It locates him rather well. Perhaps because he elaborates
on the labels.
On the other hand you persistantly evade questions about
your usage of terms such as 'establishment'.
>
> > I have renounced the Marxist definition of socialism and the Marxist
> > (ie: teleological and materialist) view of history.
Perhaps prematurely?
> > I have retained
> > the Marxist passion for radical democracy,
The dictatorship of the proleteriat?
>
> Ooohh! You interest me strangely. But what do *you* mean by "radical
> democracy"? For my view, see <98542790...@draal.apex.net.au>.
>
> > the Marxist critique of
> > alienation, expanded reproduction and capitalist crisis, and the
> > Marxist critique of liberal constitutionalism.
>
> Erk. All those labels. I can only guess at their meanings through
> the English language, which no doubt is not a good guide.
Is there a better way of accessing meaning of English words,
(even if the texts in which they are found have been translated from German)?
Capitalist crisis has a simple and clear meaning, the contention
is about it's reality and immediacy.
Alienation, to take but one, is central to Marx's theory of labour relations.
Put simply, in earlier stages of production people made their
own goods and services for their own use, or shared, or bartered.
Under capitalist formation they make a tiny part of commodities
in exchange for money, and use this money to buy other commodities.
They frequently have no relationsip to the things they make,
(imagine yourself on the Tampon assembly line)
and are thus alienated from the products of their labour.
They do not even own those products, the owners of capital do.
And they may not be able even to afford them, (eg Boeing or
Lambourghini workers)
(Critiques of Marx's view would assert that new, more sophisticated
relationships exist with our abstracted labour, (pride, job
satisfaction, etc) but few people would work without pay.)
Because Marx viewed our creative efforts as largely defining us,
(put crudely; you are what you make or do) the alienation from
our own labour means alienation from ourselves.
And as our relationship to others is now also one
of buying and selling their commodified labour, we are
also alienated from each other.
To get a feel for this, imagine someone has just presented
you with a fine peace pipe they have crafted, or a fish
they have caught and share with you, the pleasure gained
from giving and receiving, even from barter, and contrast
this to the feeling of 'alienation' when buying things
in the supermarket.
(Of course Marx was not sentimental about primitive economies,
he was fully aware of the abundance provided from specialization,
was the first to understand and theorise about its social
impact, and even anticipated stages of creative freedom
through automation)
Alienation has become a central concept of modern psychology
and sociology, largely seperated from the labour theory Marx
developed. But it still conveys the sense of 'loss of meaning
and purpose' which Marx identified with industrialization.
>
> > And there is much
> > else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> > 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> > 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> > my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> > if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as opposed
> > to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist discourse.
>
> The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
In large part. But Marx's theory anticipated technological change
because his historical method was based entirely upon examining
changes in the means of production, distrubution and exchange.
Marx argued that the nature of, say, Fuedal society was fundamentally
linked and even determined by the prevailing means of production,
(technology) and associated patterns of ownership.
Changining technology meant changing social relations and new
political forms. (eg mass democracy emerges in Europe post-Guttenberg,
people need to be literate to read for themselves, form and
exchange ideas; before that they were slaves to the priests an kings)
So if Marxism anticipates new technology, and its revolutionary
social and political consequences, the 'changing circumstances'
which render classical Marxism 'inadequate' must, at least in part,
lie elsewhere. Attempts to account for the dramatic 'circumstances'
Marx could not have anticipated have been made by a succession of
Marxists, neo-Marxists, and assorted borrowers of Hegels dialectic,
such as Gramsci and Marcuse, ..even Tristan and Ralston Saul.
Chief among these 'circumstances' are the horrors of the Lenninist
Red Terror, Stalinism, Soviet stagnation, opression in E Europe,
mass deaths during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap forward,
the collapse of the Soviets and Chinese Communist revisionsim.
These failures of notionally 'marxist' states sapped the intellectual
vigour of the left. (Although none of them grew out of Marx's
predictions for the emergence of socialist and communist societies,
which he correctly said would be post-capitalist, not post-fuedal
(Russia, China)".
In the West, feminism, birth control, concentrated Mass Media,
globalisation, materialism, and a plethora of fads and
false consciousness have to be accounted for.
>
> > Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical social
> > theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite frankly,
> > 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
>
> That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through; ie, all of
> them except Macchiavelli's.
erk.
>
> > Anyway - you know, if 'The Age' can print an article of Boris Frankel's -
> > who is an excellent Australian social theorist and radical, and who has
> > roundly condemned 'Post-Marxist Populism', then I think they should be able
> > to print material from a democratic socialist such as myself.
Have you analysed why they don't?
The ability of capitalist media to permit, even promote, absorb,
use, and assimilate radical critiques has been one of the stumbling
blocks for revolutionary theorists.
Then again, earnest, jargon filled essays on abstruse social
theories are hardly going to threaten the footy and Sex in the City,
are they?
>
> Guess so. Good luck.
Indeed. Orwells depressing vision of regimentation and homogeneity
may not have eventuated, (yet?) but the title of Marcuse's
'One Dimensional Man' seems to capture the superficiality
o much public discourse, the apathy, the nihilism,
the lack of real alternatives, and the manipulation
of populist views in support of a narrow orthodoxy.
We need all the diverse, radical, contending,
boisterous, exploratory, bold, corageous, even nutty
..viewpoints we can get.
'Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom'
Peter Wilks
>
>
> Well, I think there is some room for independence as a teacher - depending
> on the reaction of the school council....
That is the critical point.
In state schools what teahers may teach is constrained by
-The laws of the land (refamation/libel/anti-discrimination) etc
-State curriculum guidelines (CSF/VCE etc)
-School Curriculim/policy (which parts of the CSF the school can implement,
councils decisions, reflecting parents views, student subject choices, etc)
> I think a teacher should be able
> to express his/her opinions in class - so long as opposing opinions are made
> available, and so long as it is made ABSOLUTELY clear that marking will
> based on the quality of the work - NOT the views expressed in any piece of
> work.
If the opinions are in line with the community eg tolerance,
then intolerance need not be given equal time, but it is probably wise
for the teacher to discuss it anyway.
If the opinion is not part of the curriculum,
eg "God made us all in 7 days"
then the teacher needs to be very careful even expressing the
opinion, as even when other opinions are given, teachers views
influence students and form attitudes.
They also probably shouldn't be teaching science, unless
it's a private fundie school. (and not even then in my view!).
>
> There is also room for a radical citizenship agenda in so far as critical
> and independent thought and action can be emphasised at all points.
You may wish to note that the third KLA of the Victorian CSF civics unit;
"Participation", has been de-emphassised of late.
Seems there is disquet in certain circles if the kids run off and join
Grenpeace. (although if some start joining the Lyons club as
well as Amnesty, the 'establishment' may drop its concern ;-)
> Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and political
> literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
> ideologies, social movements, value systems..
I believe you are right on the money here.
Or actually, right up against it.
Of course our kids should be informed, capable of critical
analysis and judgement and engaged in citizenship responsibilities.
But this will be painted by neo-conservative forces as radicalization.
Watch this Fracture Point.
> They should have an active
> outlook on citizenship, and a desire to actively involve themselves in
> collective decision-making processes - whether in a political party, social
> movement, NGO - whatever...
> THAT'S the kind of agenda I'd like to bring to teaching, and from where I
> stand it seems perfectly reasonable.
It certainly is.
And done properly it will have widespread support in
the community.
It will also be attacked by those who want sheep produced.
But I'm sure you know that.
Peter Wilks
> "Tristan" wrote in <0mjq8.11912$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
<snip>
>
> > There is also room for a radical citizenship agenda in so far as critical
> > and independent thought and action can be emphasised at all points.
> > Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and political
> > literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
> > ideologies, social movements, value systems.. They should have an active
> > outlook on citizenship, and a desire to actively involve themselves in
> > collective decision-making processes - whether in a political party, social
> > movement, NGO - whatever...
All of those ideas can be taught in Victorian schools
under current curriculum guidelines.
Civics and Philosophy are relatively new additions.
> >
> > THAT'S the kind of agenda I'd like to bring to teaching, and from where I
> > stand it seems perfectly reasonable.
Absolutely.
Propoganda for a politicla party would not be aceptable
(not in government schools, anyway. In private schools
you can still teach Creation 'Science' and Flat Earth if
they wish) .. but encouraging active participation in
the political process, understanding it, critical
analysis, these are all essential components of citizenship.
>
> I'm very dubious about it.
Why? The traditional vectors of social values, Church, Family,
Community, School, have all been transformed and often
weakened. Churchs are largely empty, families under pressure
and often broken, communities unable to even insure the local
Annual Show or kids sporting club.
In a pluralist society the schools are increasingly being
asked to teach civic responsibility (unfortunately they are
also asked to teach health ed, bike ed, behaviour, sex ed,
drug awareness, plus the KLA's ) and they often get
bugger all help from parents and the community, and attacked
by political axe grinders as part of the elite messing with
youg minds. (But few of them seem to volunteer to
take up the increasingly demanding role o teaching, we note)
> I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
> mathematics, and language skills
Why are you making it an eithor/or dichotomy?
The curriculum is already heavily biased towards
what parents see as 'vocational' subjects,
at great cost both to hard science/ maths and to
social science/history/civics.
> (clear thinking and clear communication).
Philosophy is again a part of the Victorian curriculum.
But few parents will encourage their kids to take it,
and if they do, the numbers tend to come out of
History, not the vocational mainstream (commerce/
IT/commerce/marketing/commerce/hospitality/ etc)
> School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
> for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts.
And how are vectors and calculus mor a part of life than
citizenship and politics?
Which have you done more often since leaving school,
voted or used set theory?
> Parts which,
> moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
Schools are part of the real world.
Anything can be learnt from the real world,
but we chooose schooling to formalise learning
and ensure key concepts are available to all students.
What we don't seem to teach properly, either at homes
or in schools, is behaviour, and in state schools,
forced to enrol any student, much time is wasted in
dealing with behavioural problems and disruption.
Firm discipline policies (not corporal, but removing
problems from the classroom more readily) would help.
So too will explicit training in civics and responsibility,
where the societies core values; tolerance, respect etc
can be taught.
Parents and communities need to get real and get behind this.
>
> Of course, if the prevailing orthodoxy agrees with you...
Then the desirable social values can be taught somewhere at least,
before the schools, and the wider society, decays and disintergrates.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh
> in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > Has this nation become so degraded that
> > sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> > post their filth into every family NG?
> >
> > for some decency?
> >
> > When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> > vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> > might have children looking for material on Australian
> > culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> > and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> > and attacked me. 8^o
>
I think adopting a stand of decency is still permitted in Oz,
despite your preferences for filthmongers and perverts.
You neo-Nazis don't rule, and are never likely to.
> You set the tone of this group.
In just a month? You credit me with supernatural
powers of influence, but it only sems that way in comparison
with your own ineptitude.
I certainly appreciate your recognition of my attempts to
set a good tone, in contrast to your filth, bile and
nastiness.
> You're the hypocritical thug who ranted about "freedom of speech"
No one but you thinks support for freedom of speech makes someone
a thug.
> when we protested about the filth you and your gang of goons were
> polluting it with.
You have just been found supporting a filthy pornographer in
a NG your mates proclaimed was meant for schoolkids.
When called out, you dismissed the concerns as 'posturing'.
Now you want to pretend *I* am polluting the NG with Filth?!?!?
Get help now.
Ferdies picture is obviously a portrait of what happens
when you regularly have your head up your arse, or someone elses.
> You're the vicious agitator who dragged in a
> whole swag of dropins with no interest in act-b with your lies
> and misrepresentation about the moderation proposal to stuff the
> ballot with their votes and defeat it.
No one else can see your rabid hallucinations, but it is
your style; caught with red hands, with the evidence
of your support for Fagarse Ferdie in full view,
you invent fantasy and bullshit as a smokescreen.
> Or have you had a change of heart? Will you support a proposal
> for moderation of the group?
Because you support pornography in a family NG, you think people
should rethink your suitability as an 'immoderator'
with antidemocratic powers to supress posts and posters?!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA!
> Ned
Not-so-Spartan Olligarch. B^D
fasgnadh
> In article <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>, fasgnadh wrote:
> > Has this nation become so degraded that
> > sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> > post their filth into every family NG?
> > Where are the true-blues who will take a stand
> > for some decency?
> >
> > When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> > vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> > might have children looking for material on Australian
> > culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> > and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> > and attacked me. 8^o
>
> I don't think anyone finds that link attractive.
Except Ned and Ferdie.
A Pair of Strange Attractors if ever there were.
>
> As for pornography, pornographers have every right to post
> -- *in porn groups*.
Absolutely. I'm not a hypocritical wowser,
merely appalled at what some people think suitable
for a NG they claimed was to be for kids,
ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE OF THEM POSED AS A CANTIDATE
TO 'MODERATE' THAT NG! 8^o
Fortunately he was seen as a slandering hypocrite and
fraud even then, and rejected.
> Posting porn links to groups where the material is not topical is an abuse,
> and worth reporting.
point taken.
Rebecca
> Has this nation become so degraded that
> sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> post their filth into every family NG?
> Where are the true-blues who will take a stand
> for some decency?
>
> When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> might have children looking for material on Australian
> culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> and attacked me. 8^o
>
> _______________________________
> From: "Ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue,aus.politics
> Subject: Re: Ned on Poetic Path to Recovery ! B^D Re: Interesting
website
> Message-ID: <ylTn8.1169$Go6.1...@ozemail.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:06:41 +1100
> ...
>
> Dont get too excited
> http://www.goatse.cx/
Whoever posted the hideous picture that the above link leads to should leave
this ng in shame. I don't profess to know who posted it here, but all I can
say is that it's disgusting. Whoever the guilty party is ... just go away!
I believe in the right of consenting adults to do whatever they choose to
do. But if they want to do that sort of thing, they should keep it to
themselves, and not inflict it on the rest of us. Some things should be kept
behind very closed doors.
Again, whoever posted that filth, please migrate to some more appropriate
ng. Please!
Ned Latham
in <aa94cd37.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > "Tristan" wrote:
> > > "fasgnadh" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Ewins"? Anagram for Swine?
> > > >
> > > > Another Telstra Bogpond Sock Puppet created to order on 22/3/2000
> > > >
> > > > Can't you morons try to make your PHONie spokes Orcs a little
> > > >
> > > > "Bring back Alain"! =*=
> > >
> > > Oh - so now I'm a 'sock' am I? If you say so.
>
> I can vouch for Tristan being fair dinkum, and not a ring in;
I hope for your sake that you can convince yourself, Guano.
> his article, "Giddens & Blair: Liquidating Social Democracy"
> appeared on p 19 of the Oweek edition of Lots Wife, the Monash
> University student newspaper.
>
> He's a leftie allright,
No shit, sherlock. Working that out kept you up all night, did it?
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <aa94cd37.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Tristan" wrote:
----snip----
> On the other hand you persistantly evade questions about
> your usage of terms such as 'establishment'.
Wrong again, liar. I have repeatedly indicated the rich and powerful
in my posts, and have named people such as the Packers. I refuse to
play your boring repetitious little troll game, that's all.
----snip----
> > > the Marxist critique of
> > > alienation, expanded reproduction and capitalist crisis, and the
> > > Marxist critique of liberal constitutionalism.
> >
> > Erk. All those labels. I can only guess at their meanings through
> > the English language, which no doubt is not a good guide.
>
> Is there a better way of accessing meaning of English words,
> (even if the texts in which they are found have been translated
> from German)?
You missed the point (not unusual with you). I was referring to the
technical terms, not the individual words.
----snip----
> > > And there is much
> > > else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> > > 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> > > 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> > > my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> > > if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as opposed
> > > to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist discourse.
> >
> > The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
>
> In large part.
----snip----
> So if Marxism anticipates new technology, and its revolutionary
> social and political consequences, the 'changing circumstances'
> which render classical Marxism 'inadequate' must, at least in part,
> lie elsewhere.
Or you could enhance your understanding by simply admitting that it
doesn't anticipate, but merely predicts, new technology.
----snip----
> These failures of notionally 'marxist' states sapped the intellectual
> vigour of the left.
They themselves are to blame for that. They should have repudiated those
"notionally Marxist" states from the start. Their rout is a direct result
of their opportunism.
----snip----
> > > Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical social
> > > theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite frankly,
> > > 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
> >
> > That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through; ie, all of
> > them except Macchiavelli's.
>
> erk.
Indeed. We need either to get away from ideology or find someone to develop
a thoroughly thought out *humane* ideology.
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <aa94cd37.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "Tristan" wrote:
----snip----
> * I'm very dubious about it. I think that we need to focus on the
> * sciences, mathematics, and language skills (clear thinking and
> * clear communication).
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the "response".)
> Why?
I gave my reason, liar.
----snip----
> > I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
> > mathematics, and language skills
>
> Why are you making it an eithor/or dichotomy?
I'm not, liar. Note the word "focus". The subjects I listed
should be the focus of schooling, the core (not the whole)
of the curriculum. They are not, and Tristan didn't mention
them, implying that he rates them below the political subjects
he did mention.
That's a deeply flawed approach: very easily perverted to
straight out indoctrination.
----snip----
> * language skills (clear thinking and clear communication).
(Restored again, for the same purpose as above.)
> Philosophy is again a part of the Victorian curriculum.
I'm not referring to Philosphy the sophisticated academic study,
but to understanding of the national language and to that subset
of Philosophy that teaches semantic analysis and the ability to
express meanings clearly.
----snip----
> > School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
> > for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts.
>
> And how are vectors and calculus mor a part of life than
> citizenship and politics?
I said mathematics; I said nothing about higher levels of it.
> Which have you done more often since leaving school,
> voted or used set theory?
The latter, by far. And I use arithmetic even more often.
Mental arithmetic. No longer taught in Australian schools,
except possibly some of the elite private schools.
If you recall, we get to vote only occasionally. For most of us,
it's roughly twice every three years.
> > Parts which, moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
>
> Schools are part of the real world.
Stop misrepresenting what I say, Guano.
----snip----
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> > Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote:
(Guano's forgery of my attribution line undone.)
> > > Has this nation become so degraded that
> > > sick pornographers feel it's their right to
> > > post their filth into every family NG?
> > >
> > > Where are the true-blues who will take a stand
> > > for some decency?
> > >
> > > When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> > > vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> > > might have children looking for material on Australian
> > > culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> > > and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> > > and attacked me. 8^o
> >
> * Quit the posturing, you freak. You set the tone of this group.
> * You're the hypocritical thug who ranted about "freedom of speech"
> * when we protested about the filth you and your gang of goons were
> * polluting it with. You're the vicious agitator who dragged in a
> * whole swag of dropins with no interest in act-b with your lies
> * and misrepresentation about the moderation proposal to stuff the
> * ballot with their votes and defeat it.
(Text restored to show up the dishonesty of the response.)
> I think adopting a stand of decency is still permitted in Oz,
I didn't say otherwise, you skank.
> despite your preferences for filthmongers and perverts.
Liar. I supported the moderation proposal. It was *you* who ranted
and raved against it.
----snip----
> > Or have you had a change of heart? Will you support a proposal
> > for moderation of the group?
>
> Because you support pornography in a family NG,
Do feel free to post something you think might pass as evidence of
that, you lying freak.
----snip----
> you think people
> should rethink your suitability as an 'immoderator'
> with antidemocratic powers to supress posts and posters?!?
So you admit that you're just posturing.
Quelle surprise.
Ned Latham
in <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > "fasgnadh" wrote:
----snip----
> > > When I protested Ferdie posting links to his
> > > vile pornographic filth in a family NG which
> > > might have children looking for material on Australian
> > > culture, ferdie proclaimed that it was his "sexual preference"
> > > and Ned defended Ferdie's anal sex personal ad
> > > and attacked me. 8^o
> >
> > I don't think anyone finds that link attractive.
>
> Except Ned and Ferdie.
Wrong again, liar.
----snip----
> > As for pornography, pornographers have every right to post
> > -- *in porn groups*.
>
> Absolutely. I'm not a hypocritical wowser,
Correct. You're not a wowser.
However, you *are* a hypocrite.
Lies and remaining misrepresentations treated as they deserve:
Tristan
> > > I have renounced the Marxist definition of socialism and the Marxist
> > > (ie: teleological and materialist) view of history.
>
> Perhaps prematurely?
No - I don't think so. The Marxist definition of socialism does not account
for the possibility of
market socialism, or a socialism baed on BOTH public AND co-operative
ownership. While I believe
(in principle) in eliminating exploitation, after the Marxist definition
(ie: which means social AND co-operative ownership must replace private
ownership), I nevertheless believe market signals can play a useful role, so
long as the state intervenes to garauntee use value production. I also
believe in an economic paradigm beyond expanded reproduction - which
necessarily de-emphasises use value production in health, education, social
life - in favour of a higher and higher volume of commodities, and
productivity measures that are often dehumanising and alienating. Of
course, all this is very well and fine - but the collapse of Praxis leaves
us at the point where we no longer no how to get from point A) to point B).
Most of the movement is focussed on purely defensive struggles, and we will
be hard pressed to see 'the forward march of labour recommence'.
As to Marx's teleological view of History - the problem is that that Telos
rested upon the class struggle. The conditions of absolute emiseration, and
factory mass production creating 'industrial armies' - are in decline in the
developed world... And so too, thus, is the LOGIC of class struggle... The
class struggle will only reignite through the power of our WILLS - not the
objective 'forces' and 'trends' in History.
> > > I have retained
> > > the Marxist passion for radical democracy,
>
>
> The dictatorship of the proleteriat?
Well, the PCF (French Communist Party) was correct to see the LANGUAGE of
'dictatorship' as unacceptable given the experience of Stalinism... And
yet, we must find another way of expressing the SUBSTANCE of the
dictatorship of the proletariat - for most of the relevant arguments remain
correct. My main criticsm would simply be that I think we should be
envisaging transition without Terror.. But Terror is hardly the 'core'
element of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
> Alienation, to take but one, is central to Marx's theory of labour
relations.
>
> Put simply, in earlier stages of production people made their
> own goods and services for their own use, or shared, or bartered.
> Under capitalist formation they make a tiny part of commodities
> in exchange for money, and use this money to buy other commodities.
>
> They frequently have no relationsip to the things they make,
> (imagine yourself on the Tampon assembly line)
> and are thus alienated from the products of their labour.
> They do not even own those products, the owners of capital do.
> And they may not be able even to afford them, (eg Boeing or
> Lambourghini workers)
> (Critiques of Marx's view would assert that new, more sophisticated
> relationships exist with our abstracted labour, (pride, job
> satisfaction, etc) but few people would work without pay.)
This is also an argument about commodity fetishism - as I'm sure you
understand. And Marx's argument also related to the appalling, dehumanising
working conditions of the industrial revolution period.
This hasn't REALLY changed completely. Working conditions are appalling in
the Third World, while here an Melbourne call centers are the 'information
economy's' modern sweatshops. Pressure is placed on such workers to prevent
them from organising - as a consequence of the Reserve Army of Labour.
Also, modern economies, which greater and greater divisions of intellectual
and manual labour, bring alienation in Marx's sense, the previously
unimagined levels... Unfortunately, in part this is an inevtiable aspect of
modernity - once that even socialism cannot negate.
> Alienation has become a central concept of modern psychology
> and sociology, largely seperated from the labour theory Marx
> developed. But it still conveys the sense of 'loss of meaning
> and purpose' which Marx identified with industrialization.
Yes, I agree.
> >
> > > And there is much
> > > else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> > > 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> > > 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> > > my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> > > if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as
opposed
> > > to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist
discourse.
> >
> > The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
Yes - new technologies, the decline of the LOGIC of class struggle, coming
to terms with the necessity of (democratic or socialised) markets, coming to
terms with the decline of the industrial working class and traditional class
consciousness.
> So if Marxism anticipates new technology, and its revolutionary
> social and political consequences, the 'changing circumstances'
> which render classical Marxism 'inadequate' must, at least in part,
> lie elsewhere. Attempts to account for the dramatic 'circumstances'
> Marx could not have anticipated have been made by a succession of
> Marxists, neo-Marxists, and assorted borrowers of Hegels dialectic,
> such as Gramsci and Marcuse, ..even Tristan and Ralston Saul.
>
> Chief among these 'circumstances' are the horrors of the Lenninist
> Red Terror, Stalinism, Soviet stagnation, opression in E Europe,
> mass deaths during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap forward,
> the collapse of the Soviets and Chinese Communist revisionsim.
> These failures of notionally 'marxist' states sapped the intellectual
> vigour of the left. (Although none of them grew out of Marx's
> predictions for the emergence of socialist and communist societies,
> which he correctly said would be post-capitalist, not post-fuedal
> (Russia, China)".
>
> In the West, feminism, birth control, concentrated Mass Media,
> globalisation, materialism, and a plethora of fads and
> false consciousness have to be accounted for.
Yes, you're right here also. I feel the same way.
> >
> > > Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical
social
> > > theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite
frankly,
> > > 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
> >
> > That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through; ie, all of
> > them except Macchiavelli's.
Yes, well Machiavelli had a way of coming to grips with the brutal realities
of power. For me, however, once you resort to a conspiratorial mode of
organisation, you disempower the masses and rank and file activists, and
most likely become beholden to interests to whom your ideology is nothing
but a tool - to be exploited or discarded as is convenient: which is why we
need an autonomous socialist movement based upon the activity, participation
and final control, of rank and file activists.
> > > Anyway - you know, if 'The Age' can print an article of Boris
Frankel's -
> > > who is an excellent Australian social theorist and radical, and who
has
> > > roundly condemned 'Post-Marxist Populism', then I think they should be
able
> > > to print material from a democratic socialist such as myself.
>
> Have you analysed why they don't?
>
> The ability of capitalist media to permit, even promote, absorb,
> use, and assimilate radical critiques has been one of the stumbling
> blocks for revolutionary theorists.
>
> Then again, earnest, jargon filled essays on abstruse social
> theories are hardly going to threaten the footy and Sex in the City,
> are they?
Well, I don't think my essays are that 'jargon filled'. Although I have to
say that swaying the middle
class intellectual layers is, in itself, incredibly important. But what we
really need are progressive tabloids,
aimed at ordinary Australian workers, speaking to them in a language they
can understand... But you see, no one on the Left has the capital to mount
such a challenge.. And so we have to make do with what we've got.
Thanks for you reply - I really appreciated your ideas.
I urge you to join a broadleft egroup I moderate. We have almost 50
members, and we REALLY
need active posters to contribute just the kind of material you've been
writing about here.
The URL is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/broadleft/
I hope to see you there.
regards,
Tristan
Tristan
>
> (Imagine yourself as a teacher of astronomy in 15th century Italy. Would
> you put the Galilean view to your students?)
Not if was going to get me burned at the stake. :) Even Gallileo gave up
in the face
of repression. But like he, I would certainly push the limits as far as I
could.
> I'm very dubious about it. I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
> mathematics, and language skills (clear thinking and clear communication).
> School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
> for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts. Parts which,
> moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
>
> Of course, if the prevailing orthodoxy agrees with you...
I think the contrary is true. Rather, I think humanities and social
sciences are being slashed to make way for sciences and vocational
education. Across the country, Sociology faculties have been cut by half,
while in the middle years, they have merged Geography and History.
Frankly, I do not think most people learn these things 'in life'. People
graduate. They get a job. They are busy providing for their families and
paying the rent thereafter - and certainly have no time to think about
'political ideologies'. Most make political commitments dependent upon the
bullshit pouring forth from the shockjocks and the tabloids. Most don't
even understand our political system - our system of government - our
constitution - anything. Only a minority - for instance, active trade
unionists and business leaders, are able to comprehend their objective
INTERESTS through real life experiences. Marxist would call this the class
struggle... But bringing people to a POLITICAL consciousness - which is
what is needed - is a different matter altogether.
If we do not teach people how to think for themselves - how to relate values
to ideologies, and ideologies to social movements - then they will most
likely never be in a position to make deeply informed political judgements.
Ned - if we want a true DEMOCRACY - as opposed to a system run by self
serving elites and spin doctors - then we need to EDUCATE and MOBILISE the
citizenry. If the people themselves do no take ownership and control of a
democracy, then the consequence is that IT WILL DIE. That is what is
happening right now - and frankly - it's what many of the elites want. The
IDEOLOGY of democracy - and the idea that it is synonymous with so called
'free markets' - is pushed to saturation point - but the PRACTICE of
democracy is all but dead. Intervening at the level of education is one
very important way of reversing this trend.
regards,
Tristan
Tristan
> -School Curriculim/policy (which parts of the CSF the school can
implement,
> councils decisions, reflecting parents views, student subject choices,
etc)
Yes - well, I think - for a start - we need to make at least one social
sciences/humanities subject IN ADDITION to English COMPULSORY in years 11
and 12... And I think, perhaps, we should have
a subject - perhaps a compulsory subject - which aims at encouraging active
citizenship and political and ideological literacy. I am thinking about
pursuing this issue through the ALP Left - but there doesn't seem to be much
enthusiasm for a REAL 'bottom-up' policy process I have to admit.
> If the opinion is not part of the curriculum,
> eg "God made us all in 7 days"
> then the teacher needs to be very careful even expressing the
> opinion, as even when other opinions are given, teachers views
> influence students and form attitudes.
> They also probably shouldn't be teaching science, unless
> it's a private fundie school. (and not even then in my view!).
Well, I think we need to provide religious positions side by side with
accepted scientific
positions and let kids make of their own minds. I think, moreover, we need
to give kids
access to arguments which attempt to reconcile religion and science - which
take religious
stories as metaphor, rather than emphasising their LITERAL interpretation..
But, on the other hand,
I don't think there is a role for religious INSTRUCTION in a secular
education environment.
Religious views, then, are presented like all other views - as part of the
overall pluralist approach.
It's also worthwhile, in this sense, making connections between religion and
philosophy - in particular
Metaphysics and Ethics. In this sense, religious questions remain pertinent
because, frankly, they are
often Metaphysical questions. Traditional religious ethics, however, may
come in for a real hammering
from a modern secular ethical approach. Critical engagement with diverse
traditions is the stuff of a
pluralist education.
> You may wish to note that the third KLA of the Victorian CSF civics unit;
> "Participation", has been de-emphassised of late.
>
> Seems there is disquet in certain circles if the kids run off and join
> Grenpeace. (although if some start joining the Lyons club as
> well as Amnesty, the 'establishment' may drop its concern ;-)
Hehe. Yes - it reveals the real agendas and prejudices of those who are
'concerned'. But I
have to admit ignorance. I am a first year student teacher, and I do not
yet know about
the 'KLA' - let alone 'the third KLA'. Would you care to inform me further?
> > Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and
political
> > literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
> > ideologies, social movements, value systems..
>
> I believe you are right on the money here.
>
> Or actually, right up against it.
>
> Of course our kids should be informed, capable of critical
> analysis and judgement and engaged in citizenship responsibilities.
>
> But this will be painted by neo-conservative forces as radicalization.
>
> Watch this Fracture Point.
Well, you know people like me are hoping it WILL result in radicalisation.
But that is not so much
because it is the INTENT of the program - but simply because I believe
radical forces are greatly
strengthened WHEN REASON IS ALLOWED TO DO ITS WORK. I believe, that if we
present
progressive liberal and socialist arguments alongside Conservative and
fascist arguments - and allow - and ENABLE - students to make their own
critical evaluation - and to base that evaluation on VALUE - that
progressive perspective will benefit from this 'ideological level playing
field'. And this is entirely consistent with the hegemonic liberal
ideology....
regards,
Tristan
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > (Imagine yourself as a teacher of astronomy in 15th century Italy. Would
> > you put the Galilean view to your students?)
>
> Not if was going to get me burned at the stake. :) Even Gallileo gave up
> in the face of repression. But like he, I would certainly push the limits
> as far as I could.
Ugh. The text in parenthese was intended to exemplify the rather general
question "what happens if you're required to teach an orthodoxy that's
under contest by a vilified minority?". It wasn't intended to replace it.
> > I'm very dubious about it. I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
> > mathematics, and language skills (clear thinking and clear communication).
> > School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
> > for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts. Parts which,
> > moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
> >
> > Of course, if the prevailing orthodoxy agrees with you...
>
> I think the contrary is true. Rather, I think humanities and social
> sciences are being slashed to make way for sciences and vocational
> education.
If so, it's only relative to the last decade or so.
> Across the country, Sociology faculties have been cut by half,
> while in the middle years, they have merged Geography and History.
I'm talking about primary, and to a lesser extent secondary, education:
not tertiary. I have no quarrel with the teaching of social sciences
at the tertiary level. By then, students should be well equipped to
deal with spin, and their only danger would be from political correctness.
> Frankly, I do not think most people learn these things 'in life'.
If they've been taught some ideology, no they don't, or rarely.
If they've been taught to think clearly, yes they do.
> People
> graduate. They get a job. They are busy providing for their families and
> paying the rent thereafter - and certainly have no time to think about
> 'political ideologies'.
Not true. They have plenty of time for the idiot box; what's lacking is
the will and ability to analyse the complexities of life in the real
world. It's much easier to simply filter everything through the prejudices
created by the friction-free analyses fed to them at school.
> Most make political commitments dependent upon the
> bullshit pouring forth from the shockjocks and the tabloids.
You're assuming that people taught clear thinking from childhood are as
vulnerable to that sort of influence as people who've been taught that
"democracy" means getting a vote every three years.
It ain't so.
> Most don't
> even understand our political system - our system of government - our
> constitution - anything.
You're talking about people whose education is much more like your ideal
than mine: arguing against your own position.
> Only a minority - for instance, active trade
> unionists and business leaders, are able to comprehend their objective
> INTERESTS through real life experiences.
Again, you argue against yourself. Think about what you said (and I said
in reply) in relation to the demoralisation of Marxists by the collapse
of the "notionally Marxist" states. Their rout was brought on by their
opportunism, which indicates a *lack* of comprehension.
As to businessmen, I'm at a loss to explain to myself how you can see
the godawful succession of business failures over the last few decades
as indicative of their having the ability to comprehend their objective
interests.
> Marxist would call this the class
> struggle... But bringing people to a POLITICAL consciousness - which is
> what is needed - is a different matter altogether.
>
> If we do not teach people how to think for themselves -
That is precisely what *I* am urging.
> how to relate
> values to ideologies, and ideologies to social movements -
Without a grounding in the sciences, mathematics and logic, you can't
do that. All you can do is teach them a relationship between value
and ideology; IOW, indoctrinate them.
> then they
> will most likely never be in a position to make deeply informed
> political judgements.
That brings up the other aspect of reform our world requires. Not only
must high quality education be available to all, so too must high
quality information.
> Ned - if we want a true DEMOCRACY - as opposed to a system run by self
> serving elites and spin doctors - then we need to EDUCATE and MOBILISE
> the citizenry.
That's your ideology talking. Think about it. To what must they be
educated? For what must they be mobilised?
Oh yes. Marxism and revolution.
It's time to start questioning your assumptions, Tristan.
Marxism is a failure because it is no less paternalistic than other
ideologies (people are not as thick as the academics think).
Revolution is a failure because it always replaces one establishment
with another (with the best of paternalistic intentions, of course).
> If the people themselves do no take ownership and control
> of a democracy, the consequence is that IT WILL DIE.
We don't *have* democracy. To run the risk of its death, we must first
create it.
> That is what is
> happening right now -
What's happening now is no different than what's been happening throughout
our nation's history. All along, the establishment have been in control of
all that matters: education, information, economic and physical compulsion,
and in politics, the selection of candidates for office.
> and frankly - it's what many of the elites want. The
> IDEOLOGY of democracy - and the idea that it is synonymous with so called
> 'free markets' - is pushed to saturation point - but the PRACTICE of
> democracy is all but dead.
It's been dead for centuries. Except for a faint flicker in Switzerland.
> Intervening at the level of education is one
> very important way of reversing this trend.
I agree. But indoctrinating children with half-baked ideologies is
not the way to go. First, teach them how to recognise spin. That
means basic science and mathematics, and high level language skills,
with an emphasis on clear thinking.
It has to be done in primary school so that analytical thinking is
reflexive.
Ned Latham
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "Peter Wilks", wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > The dictatorship of the proleteriat?
>
> Well, the PCF (French Communist Party) was correct to see the LANGUAGE
> of 'dictatorship' as unacceptable given the experience of Stalinism...
> And yet, we must find another way of expressing the SUBSTANCE of the
> dictatorship of the proletariat - for most of the relevant arguments
> remain correct. My main criticsm would simply be that I think we should
> be envisaging transition without Terror.. But Terror is hardly the 'core'
> element of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Tell that to the people for whom the very phrase itself is Terror.
----snip----
> > > > Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical
> > > > social theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that,
> > > > quite frankly, 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
> > >
> > > That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through;
> > > ie, all of them except Macchiavelli's.
>
> Yes, well Machiavelli had a way of coming to grips with the brutal
> realities of power.
That's what I meant. He set himself a limited objective and thought
the matter through very thoroughly.
But you missed the main point. No other ideology is more than half
baked.
> For me, however, once you resort to a conspiratorial mode of
> organisation, you disempower the masses and rank and file activists,
> and most likely become beholden to interests to whom your ideology
> is nothing but a tool - to be exploited or discarded as is convenient:
As in those "notionally Marxist" states, for example, and the failure
of Marxists world wide to repudiate them.
> which is why we need an autonomous socialist movement based upon the
> activity, participation and final control, of rank and file activists.
If you mean that your activists both propose and dispose, then no:
that way lies tyranny. Proposal and disposition must be separated.
It doesn't matter what individual or group holds them, if both powers
are in the same hands, tyranny is virtually inevitable.
----snip----
fasgnadh
> "Tristan" wrote in <D4Wq8.17786$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > (Imagine yourself as a teacher of astronomy in 15th century Italy. Would
> > > you put the Galilean view to your students?)
> >
> > Not if was going to get me burned at the stake. :) Even Gallileo gave up
> > in the face of repression. But like he, I would certainly push the limits
> > as far as I could.
>
> Ugh. The text in parenthese was intended to exemplify the rather general
> question "what happens if you're required to teach an orthodoxy that's
> under contest by a vilified minority?". It wasn't intended to replace it.
But he answered the question you put, rather than the one
you meant, but are too dishonest to put clearly.
Afraid to name the 'orthodoxy' you claim is forced upon us?
Afraid that your absurd attacks on tolerant multicultural
Australia mark you as a racist and xenophobe who serves
the interests of the establishment by sowing division?
Afraid no-one shares your view of yourself as a 'vilified
minority'? Don't be, we agree you are a minority, despised
by decent mainstream aussies becasue you do Howards work,
blaming ethnics and immigrants for cultural changes brought
about by globalisation, materialism and greed, and your
own abandonment of the basic values of true-blues;
A Fair Go For All.
>
> > > I'm very dubious about it. I think that we need to focus on the sciences,
> > > mathematics, and language skills (clear thinking and clear communication).
> > > School should be about preparation not for citizenship and politics but
> > > for life, of which citizenship and politics are but parts. Parts which,
> > > moreover, can be learnt from the real world.
> > >
> > > Of course, if the prevailing orthodoxy agrees with you...
> >
> > I think the contrary is true. Rather, I think humanities and social
> > sciences are being slashed to make way for sciences and vocational
> > education.
>
> If so, it's only relative to the last decade or so.
It is true that the ALP puts much greater emphassis on
education and R&D that the current government, but
so long as globalisation is assisted by a government policy
of maintaining a large pool of unemployed, to cower and
coerce the workforce, then students and parents will
respond to the intense pressure for jobs by abandoning
EVERYTHING but vocational training.
Isn't that obvious fact clear to you?
>
> > Across the country, Sociology faculties have been cut by half,
> > while in the middle years, they have merged Geography and History.
>
> I'm talking about primary, and to a lesser extent secondary, education:
So is he.
You are just completely out of touch.
The japanese approah to intensive competition for
prime employment opportunities was competition for
elite university placement --> competition in
secondary school---> competition in primary --->
competition in kindergarten..
Hence the interest in genetic engineering ;-)
Competition in the womb!
> not tertiary. I have no quarrel with the teaching of social sciences
> at the tertiary level.
Like every discipline, it won't exist at tertiary levels if
the preliminary groundwork isn't there earlier.
> By then, students should be well equipped to
> deal with spin,
By being exposed to it daily in the media and never having
had the chance in school to critically analyse and discuss it?
Pfffft! You do the work of the establishment for them.
> and their only danger would be from political correctness.
We are all in danger of Howard's Political Correctness,
just look at how he dismisses even Malcolm Frasers
carefully argued criticisms with jargon labels like
'elitist'. Add it to the list of mindless PC-reflex
terms to dismiss any criticism of establishment views;
'dole bludger' 'usual suspects' 'black armband''tree-hugger'..
all in the great tradition of "commie" and 'pinko'
The slogans of the students, workers and ethnic groups
have arrayed against them the full power of government and media,
who manage to brand the weak as elites, and protest as 'PC'
>
> > Frankly, I do not think most people learn these things 'in life'.
>
> If they've been taught some ideology, no they don't, or rarely.
You have it arse about, the media and government constantly
deride any understanding of ideology or political thought,
because whenever there is critical examination, it reveals,
and then challenges the establishments own.
By fostering ignorance, as you both demonstrate, and advocate,
you ensure that the only ideology people are exposed to is
the media and establishments status quo.
> If they've been taught to think clearly, yes they do.
How can you be taught to think clearly about politics if
you don't discuss and critically examine politics?
Ditto History, ideology, etc.
>
> > People
> > graduate. They get a job. They are busy providing for their families and
> > paying the rent thereafter - and certainly have no time to think about
> > 'political ideologies'.
>
> Not true. They have plenty of time for the idiot box;
Thats what happens when, as you advocate, people are left to
'learn from life' and that life is increasingly dominated by
media and other entertainment circuses.
Combined with the fierce competition for bread, we have the
classic recipe for governing ignorant masses, bread and circuses.
And you advocating for it. (It was the Romans, and not your
preferred Spartan Oligarchs, or slave owning misogynists,
who raised that to an artform)
> what's lacking is
> the will and ability to analyse the complexities of life in the real
> world.
Not encouraged in schools? Pffft.
> It's much easier to simply filter everything through the prejudices
> created by the friction-free analyses fed to them at school.
Thats what happens when the you emphaisie the sciences, about which
less disputation and discussion exists, and try to geld the
humanities.
"Today we will have a discussion on alternative solutions
to the orthodox 1+1 solution. Ned, any views on how it's
all multiculturalatedneopsuedodisestablisnmentarianisms fault?"
>
> > Most make political commitments dependent upon the
> > bullshit pouring forth from the shockjocks and the tabloids.
Thats what Ned means when he advocates 'learning from real life'.
YOu will grasp that if you ever atually come to terms with Ned's
views.
(He hints, rather than states them)
>
> You're assuming that people taught clear thinking from childhood are as
> vulnerable to that sort of influence as people who've been taught that
> "democracy" means getting a vote every three years.
>
> It ain't so.
TO most of us, the fact that we ALL, women included, get
to hold our elected government accountable is seen as better
than your preferred model where females and slaves are denied
citizenship and the vote, and we hold that view because we can
think clearly.
Few see the system as perfect, many argue for improvements, but
almost none share your view that it would be improved by
removing votes from women and enslaving workers.
Thus, few want to have your views imposed in schools, any more than
they wanted them imposed on a whole NG. B^p
But in both schools and here, the true-blue democrats are happy to
have them discussed, seen for what they are, and laughed at.
>
> > Most don't
> > even understand our political system - our system of government - our
> > constitution - anything.
>
> You're talking about people whose education is much more like your ideal
> than mine:
Yes, he is avocating understanding, and you, ignorance.
> arguing against your own position.
only your misrepresentation of it.
>
> > Only a minority - for instance, active trade
> > unionists and business leaders, are able to comprehend their objective
> > INTERESTS through real life experiences.
>
> Again, you argue against yourself.
As do you:
> Think about what you said (and I said
> in reply) in relation to the demoralisation of Marxists by the collapse
> of the "notionally Marxist" states. Their rout was brought on by their
> opportunism, which indicates a *lack* of comprehension.
>
> As to businessmen, I'm at a loss to explain to myself how you can see
> the godawful succession of business failures over the last few decades
> as indicative of their having the ability to comprehend their objective
> interests.
"you argue against yourself" as clearly they failed to 'LEARN FROM
LIFE"
I think you are both wrong.
>
> > Marxist would call this the class
> > struggle... But bringing people to a POLITICAL consciousness - which is
> > what is needed - is a different matter altogether.
Which is what makes you sound like Ned, two didactics with
agenda's for the education system, which makes people
suspicious your intentions is precisely the propagandising
that Ned claims is going on.
In fact, his reticence to lay out his LaRouchian agenda is
tactically superior to you frank discussion of Marxism.
You will help him arouse mistrust of the status quo,
he will ultimately exploit your communist sympathies.
But then, he is the Machiavellian, and you the naive idealist.
> >
> > If we do not teach people how to think for themselves -
>
> That is precisely what *I* am urging.
By leaving them to 'life' when every aspect of it, work, media, news,
sporting Soma.. is increasingly dominated by the establishment?
pfft!
>
> > how to relate
> > values to ideologies, and ideologies to social movements -
>
> Without a grounding in the sciences, mathematics and logic, you can't
> do that.
Logic is a component of Philosophy, which was attacked by
you when it was suggested it was a good thing it be taught.
Your 'clear thinking' is effected by your education from a life
of semi darkness.
> All you can do is teach them a relationship between value
> and ideology; IOW, indoctrinate them.
Distant Early Warning for Tristan. B^)
You will make a great tactical foil for Ned. ;-)
>
> > then they
> > will most likely never be in a position to make deeply informed
> > political judgements.
>
> That brings up the other aspect of reform our world requires. Not only
> must high quality education be available to all, so too must high
> quality information.
>
> > Ned - if we want a true DEMOCRACY - as opposed to a system run by self
> > serving elites and spin doctors - then we need to EDUCATE and MOBILISE
> > the citizenry.
>
> That's your ideology talking. Think about it. To what must they be
> educated? For what must they be mobilised?
>
> Oh yes. Marxism and revolution.
Ta Da!
The path is cleared for Ned's Fourth Way, (or is this his Fifth Way?
there have been so many, and they are so confused, that one loses
track)
Anyway, the flare is up, the signal has been given for the
pack to start baying, open season has been declared.
>
> It's time to start questioning your assumptions, Tristan.
Oh, and will there be a quid pro quo?
Not bloody likely, it will soon be Ned's standard stalling;
"Liar"
"Wrong"
"Text restored to make everything seem to support Ned" etc B^D
>
> Marxism is a failure because it is no less paternalistic than other
> ideologies (people are not as thick as the academics think).
Oh look, suddenly 'academics' are back on the menu! B^D
Ned may not agree with you, but he will defend your right
to speak, so long as you agre with him, right up to your death.
>
> Revolution is a failure because it always replaces one establishment
> with another (with the best of paternalistic intentions, of course).
Well, they all tend to be a bit bloody for my liking, but the
French one had a profound effect upon global political developments,
almost as much as the American one.
My favourites however, remain the Agrarian, the Industrial,
the Information, and the one brought about by urban sewers
and flush toilets.
>
> > If the people themselves do no take ownership and control
> > of a democracy, the consequence is that IT WILL DIE.
>
> We don't *have* democracy. To run the risk of its death, we must first
> create it.
YOu never did explain about how removing the votes from women
and enslaving the workforce would make ' a better working system'
..perhaps now is the time?
>
> > That is what is
> > happening right now -
>
> What's happening now is no different than what's been happening throughout
> our nation's history. All along, the establishment have been in control of
> all that matters: education, information, economic and physical compulsion,
> and in politics, the selection of candidates for office.
So by leaving people to be 'educated by life' you ensure that
the establishments dominance in every aspect of that life
goes unchallenged.
You are their tool, unwitting or otherwise.
>
> > and frankly - it's what many of the elites want. The
> > IDEOLOGY of democracy - and the idea that it is synonymous with so called
> > 'free markets' - is pushed to saturation point - but the PRACTICE of
> > democracy is all but dead.
>
> It's been dead for centuries. Except for a faint flicker in Switzerland.
>
> > Intervening at the level of education is one
> > very important way of reversing this trend.
>
> I agree. But indoctrinating children with half-baked ideologies is
> not the way to go.
Have no fear, you and LaRouche will still be using card
tables in shopping malls, and trawling the internet for
years to come, parents will never let you push your intolerance
and dogma in schools.
> First, teach them how to recognise spin. That
> means basic science and mathematics,
Yes but the rotation of the earth will hardly help them come
to grips with values like social justice and the history
of tolerance in our multicultural community.
> and high level language skills,
> with an emphasis on clear thinking.
Ah, finally some sense, even very young children can
be taught Philosophy, including Logic, clear thinking,
innoculation by understanding of Rhetoric, even the big issues,
"What is the good life?" (Is it really unfettered materialism? Has
it made uis happy?) epistemology and metaphysics.
What can we know, and
Why are we here are excellent questions to ask young minds,
to encourage them to SEEK THEIR OWN ANSWERS... and thus
TO INNOCULATE THEM FROM ANYONE WITH AGENDA's eh Ned?.. (eh tristan?)
>
> It has to be done in primary school so that analytical thinking is
> reflexive.
It's sad you missed out, and hence your reflex rether than thinking.
Peter Wilks
>
>
> I think the contrary is true. Rather, I think humanities and social
> sciences are being slashed to make way for sciences and vocational
> education. Across the country, Sociology faculties have been cut by half,
> while in the middle years, they have merged Geography and History.
>
> Frankly, I do not think most people learn these things 'in life'. People
> graduate. They get a job. They are busy providing for their families and
> paying the rent thereafter - and certainly have no time to think about
> 'political ideologies'.
In the days in which Australia led the world in social reform,
the 8-8-8 campaign argued for a balance between work/sleep and
re creation. And that was for ONE breadwinner, with the other
parent usually carrying out homeduties.
As you rightly point out, the rat race leaves little time for
reflection by either of the (typically) two working parents.
This in itself is a recipe for the superficial political
attitudes you describe below.
To have so many time poor citizens, simultaneously with
15% of the population unemployed or underutilized is an
indictment of poor economic management.
It is also a cause for concern when this same time-poor class
is led by the populist providers of 'fast-feed' opinions to
deride the group who traditionally devoted large parts of their
working lives to reflection and critical thought; intellectuals
and academics. This is classic divide and rule by the establishment.
Just as surplus production allowed the emergence of capitalists,
priests and ruling class, so that surplus enabled some people
to concentrate on theoretical pursuits, pure research,
study of history, archeology, ..all the diverse intellectual
pursuits which hurtled us through the industrial and information
revolutions.
It is absurd, and not a little frightening, to hear government
frontbenchers, the true power elite, deriding academics as
'the elites', part of the demonised and despised 'chattering
classes'.
But the political purpose in them demonising their critics is clear,
what is shocking is to hear ordinary people adopt this credo,
to deride reflection, thought, pure research,
as 'airy fairy' 'ivory tower' and useless, and regard academics
and intellectuals as dispensible.
Civilization is to a large degree the product of that DIALOGUE.
We are the species that talks, discusses argues..
it is our best alternative to war, in the resolution
of competing interests.
Those that join the establishment in attempting to silence critical
thought or the historical studies which give us an understanding of
who we are, or the philosophical examination of profound ethical
moral and metaphysical questions, diminish us all.
I am not arguing for an elite intellectual class, rather
that the masses, burdened with their frenetic existences,
demand for themselves, and for every member of the polis,
that time, and access, to contemplate, reflect and understand.
As Socrates commented, the unexamined life is not worth living.
> Most make political commitments dependent upon the
> bullshit pouring forth from the shockjocks and the tabloids.
L.C.D. media .... Soma.
> Most don't
> even understand our political system - our system of government - our
> constitution - anything. Only a minority - for instance, active trade
> unionists and business leaders, are able to comprehend their objective
> INTERESTS through real life experiences.
I disagree here, I think most people have at least a sense of the disjointed
and disconnected nature of their lives, but see no real alternatives.
> Marxist would call this the class
> struggle... But bringing people to a POLITICAL consciousness - which is
> what is needed - is a different matter altogether.
>
Indeed. The masses would prefer peace, even at the price of freedom,
rather than struggle and confrontation.
Political demonstrations are usually counter productive precisely
because of this antipathy to 'disorder'.
But at the same time, while there is admiration for those who make
concrete, constructive contributions, (fred Hollows, Tim Costello)
there is little evidence of widespread imitation, the degree of
sacrifice required is not popular among comfort seekers.
> If we do not teach people how to think for themselves - how to relate values
> to ideologies, and ideologies to social movements - then they will most
> likely never be in a position to make deeply informed political judgements.
Two questions.
In the area of people thinking for themselves, do we teach
or do we encourage learning.
It may seem a quibble, but it is an important distinction.
'Teaching' implies reiification, learning suggests empowerment
and discovery.
I know you have teamed it with ..'to think for themselves'
but you leave yourself open to accusations of teaching
'your values' unless you are careful, and teach within
the curriculum.
Despite my defence of intellectuals and academics, i believe
that in these areas of values and 'how to relate them to ideologies'
anyone involved in education must tread carefully, with utmost
openess and transparency, precisely because the forces of reaction
fear any challenge to their systems of attitude formation.
>
> Ned - if we want a true DEMOCRACY - as opposed to a system run by self
> serving elites and spin doctors - then we need to EDUCATE and MOBILISE the
> citizenry.
This sort of language in particular is counter productive.
> If the people themselves do no take ownership and control of a
> democracy, then the consequence is that IT WILL DIE. That is what is
> happening right now - and frankly - it's what many of the elites want. The
> IDEOLOGY of democracy - and the idea that it is synonymous with so called
> 'free markets' - is pushed to saturation point - but the PRACTICE of
> democracy is all but dead. Intervening at the level of education is one
> very important way of reversing this trend.
Not until you have the support of the community whose
children you propose to teach.
Otherwise you merely fuel the paranoia of those who think
you 'academics' already have control and are pushing an
agenda.
When, in fact, education is becoming privatised,
and it is business and the corporates who increasingly
control the agenda. Hence the 'back to basics' and 3-R's
campaigns by A.C.A. to further demoralise and attack teachers.
After all, if the teachers union complains about large class sizes,
or courses in 'Hospitality' (obedience training) 'Customer Service'
(toadying) and Hamburgerology, then the establishment fears its
reduction in support for public education may become a political issue.
Peter Wilks
it makes it very difficult to refer to the previous post
you are responding to.
"Tristan" <tris...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<2hWq8.17806$hi7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > -School Curriculim/policy (which parts of the CSF the school can
> implement,
> > councils decisions, reflecting parents views, student subject choices,
> etc)
>
> Yes - well, I think - for a start - we need to make at least one social
> sciences/humanities subject IN ADDITION to English COMPULSORY in years 11
> and 12... And I think, perhaps, we should have
> a subject - perhaps a compulsory subject - which aims at encouraging active
> citizenship and political and ideological literacy. I am thinking about
> pursuing this issue through the ALP Left -
That should kill it off quickly.
> but there doesn't seem to be much
> enthusiasm for a REAL 'bottom-up' policy process I have to admit.
You cannot expect to achieve changes to school curriculum
without widespread, not partisan political, support.
>
>
> > If the opinion is not part of the curriculum,
> > eg "God made us all in 7 days"
> > then the teacher needs to be very careful even expressing the
> > opinion, as even when other opinions are given, teachers views
> > influence students and form attitudes.
> > They also probably shouldn't be teaching science, unless
> > it's a private fundie school. (and not even then in my view!).
>
>
> Well, I think we need to provide religious positions side by side with
> accepted scientific
> positions and let kids make of their own minds.
That is precisely what 'Creation Science' advocates argue,
and is a travesty of science.
What next, teach The Stork in sex ed, and let the children
decide for themselves?
> I think, moreover, we need
> to give kids access to arguments which attempt to reconcile
> religion and science - which take religious
> stories as metaphor, rather than emphasising their LITERAL interpretation..
Fine, but that has nothing to do with what should be taught
in the science classroom. Science, not discredited malarky.
> But, on the other hand,
> I don't think there is a role for religious INSTRUCTION in a secular
> education environment.
> Religious views, then, are presented like all other views - as part of the
> overall pluralist approach.
Yes, there is a difference between Religious education,
and religious instruction.
The former is a valid part of a secular curriculum which looks
at human societies, the latter is indoctrination.
> It's also worthwhile, in this sense, making connections between religion and
> philosophy - in particular
> Metaphysics and Ethics.
Quite appropriate, as Religious thinking forms the basis
of many of the key philosophical questions.
> In this sense, religious questions remain pertinent
> because, frankly, they are
> often Metaphysical questions. Traditional religious ethics, however, may
> come in for a real hammering
> from a modern secular ethical approach.
Post modernism might come in for an even more potent hammering.
> Critical engagement with diverse
> traditions is the stuff of a
> pluralist education.
Absolutely, which is why the supposed 'freedom of choice' of
every religious group to indoctrinate their children with the
dogma of the parents is a violation of their rights to freedom
of belief.
How can they investigate and decide for themselves if they
are run through years of religious propoganda? (Even if,
as the flood of escapees from Charismatic and convent schools
indicates how counter productive it is.)
>
>
> > You may wish to note that the third KLA of the Victorian CSF civics unit;
> > "Participation", has been de-emphassised of late.
> >
> > Seems there is disquet in certain circles if the kids run off and join
> > Grenpeace. (although if some start joining the Lyons club as
> > well as Amnesty, the 'establishment' may drop its concern ;-)
>
>
> Hehe. Yes - it reveals the real agendas and prejudices of those who are
> 'concerned'. But I
> have to admit ignorance. I am a first year student teacher, and I do not
> yet know about
> the 'KLA' - let alone 'the third KLA'. Would you care to inform me further?
As a student teacher I would have thought you were deeply imbued
with the Key Learning Areas as set down by the Victorian CSF.
They are the areas to be taught in all government schools, (and
adopted by many of the private schools, as they should be if they
are to receive public money. Taxpayers should not be subsidising
flat-earthers, especially as we willl have to wear the social
costs of ignorance later on)
I suggest you become familiar with the KLA's lest you
find yourself under attack for teaching outside them.
Perhaps I called confusion by referring to "Participation"
as one of the 3 KLA's when of course, as anyone involved in education
would know, it is in fact one of the Key Learning Skills, in the CSF.
The other two are;
Investigation
Communication
(&Participation)
According to the Victorian people through their government
and DEETYA (or whatever it has become now), students should
become responsible for their own learning by being able to
Investigate for themselves (requiring skills in analysis
thinking, evaluation, etc) .
Posess the language, literacy and people skills to communicate their
knowledge and understanding.
And Participate fully in community, social, political life.
Now who would find fault with that as a high level mission statement?
The establsihment? Their lackies?
And who could not find in that vision, the approval,
not to propagandize, not to indoctrinate, perhaps not even 'to Teach',
but to assist in *learning*, the development of the students own
values and opinions, as well as knowledge and skills.
>
> > > Students should be leaving Year 12 in a state of ideological and
> political
> > > literacy - where they are able to make informed choices about parties,
> > > ideologies, social movements, value systems..
> >
> > I believe you are right on the money here.
> >
> > Or actually, right up against it.
> >
> > Of course our kids should be informed, capable of critical
> > analysis and judgement and engaged in citizenship responsibilities.
> >
> > But this will be painted by neo-conservative forces as radicalization.
> >
> > Watch this Fracture Point.
>
>
> Well, you know people like me are hoping it WILL result in radicalisation.
And if it is radicalization of the right?
Will you be as pleased then?
Perhaps you should note the current reaction to your stance.
> But that is not so much
> because it is the INTENT of the program - but simply because I believe
> radical forces are greatly
> strengthened WHEN REASON IS ALLOWED TO DO ITS WORK.
Critique is in itself radical, but you may be imprudent,
to link the radicalism of critical analysis to Marxism.
> I believe, that if we
> present
> progressive liberal and socialist arguments alongside Conservative and
> fascist arguments - and allow - and ENABLE - students to make their own
> critical evaluation - and to base that evaluation on VALUE - that
> progressive perspective will benefit from this 'ideological level playing
> field'.
And if that occurs you will be under attack by those who fear
the 3rd Key Learning Skill, and will have given them the 'Marxist'
ammunition with which to hang you.
> And this is entirely consistent with the hegemonic liberal
> ideology....
You believe the hegemony is liberal?
Even the neo-liberals are under fire.
Have you heard how Malcolm Fraser is despised by the
new far right?
These days, dissent is not merely assimilated and co-opted,
it is declared terrorism and crushed.
good luck.
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> Tristan
Peter Wilks
> > > > I have renounced the Marxist definition of socialism and the Marxist
> > > > (ie: teleological and materialist) view of history.
> >
> > Perhaps prematurely?
>
>
> No - I don't think so. The Marxist definition of socialism does not account
> for the possibility of
> market socialism, or a socialism baed on BOTH public AND co-operative
> ownership. While I believe
> (in principle) in eliminating exploitation, after the Marxist definition
> (ie: which means social AND co-operative ownership must replace private
> ownership), I nevertheless believe market signals can play a useful role, so
> long as the state intervenes to garauntee use value production. I also
> believe in an economic paradigm beyond expanded reproduction - which
> necessarily de-emphasises use value production in health, education, social
> life - in favour of a higher and higher volume of commodities, and
> productivity measures that are often dehumanising and alienating. Of
> course, all this is very well and fine - but the collapse of Praxis leaves
> us at the point where we no longer no how to get from point A) to point B).
> Most of the movement is focussed on purely defensive struggles, and we will
> be hard pressed to see 'the forward march of labour recommence'.
>
> As to Marx's teleological view of History -
It was to this that my comment applied
> the problem is that that Telos
> rested upon the class struggle.
That is certainly the emphassis given to it by the Soviets,
and the Chinese. But of course Lenin had read very little
Marx, certainly not the Writings of the young Marx,
and definitely not the Grundrisse.
Perhaps, if youhaven't done so already you might like to
have a look at his writing on a time, post-capitalist
when we might fish in the morning, create things in the afternoon,
and write in the evening.
ie, where he anticipates the benefits of automation,
(after passing through the curent stage of capitalist concentration
of capital and intensified hegemony), frees manking from the necessity
of work.
This seems to me truer to the spirit of Marx, and the allieviation
of alienmation when we have sufficient economic freedom to be truly
creative in our labour, than class struggle.
Of course the Manifesto is a much smaller book, easier to read,
and far more well known than Das Kapital, which may be why it
was so popular in peasant nations, and led, due to their lack
of developed democratic institutions, to frightful dictatorships
which have made 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' anathema forever.
But by all means.. take up your cross, and carry on.
> The conditions of absolute emiseration, and
> factory mass production creating 'industrial armies' - are in decline in the
> developed world... And so too, thus, is the LOGIC of class struggle... The
> class struggle will only reignite through the power of our WILLS - not the
> objective 'forces' and 'trends' in History.
Funny, I thought I read that IN the Grundrisse.
Do you really take Marx to have been so thoroughly
deterministic? I always thought he was a sly old bugger,
nad knew his audience's need for certainty.
After all his contempories, Freud and Nietzche,
were demolishing the psyche and religion as thoroughly
as he de-constructed political economy.
And as history since then shows, that leaves a fairly
neurotic humanity.
> > > > I have retained
> > > > the Marxist passion for radical democracy,
> >
> >
> > The dictatorship of the proleteriat?
>
>
> Well, the PCF (French Communist Party) was correct to see the LANGUAGE of
> 'dictatorship' as unacceptable given the experience of Stalinism...
You would do best to leave it at that.
Perhaps divert to the Paris Commune, or the first Soviets
when free love was proclaimed, (lasted less than a week, i believe)
> And
> yet, we must find another way of expressing the SUBSTANCE of the
> dictatorship of the proletariat - for most of the relevant arguments remain
> correct.
Oh dear.
> My main criticsm would simply be that I think we should be
> envisaging transition without Terror.. But Terror is hardly the 'core'
> element of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Except in the popular mind.
Marx would have learnt something from Marketing.
> > Alienation, to take but one, is central to Marx's theory of labour
> relations.
> >
> > Put simply, in earlier stages of production people made their
> > own goods and services for their own use, or shared, or bartered.
> > Under capitalist formation they make a tiny part of commodities
> > in exchange for money, and use this money to buy other commodities.
> >
> > They frequently have no relationsip to the things they make,
> > (imagine yourself on the Tampon assembly line)
> > and are thus alienated from the products of their labour.
> > They do not even own those products, the owners of capital do.
> > And they may not be able even to afford them, (eg Boeing or
> > Lambourghini workers)
>
> > (Critiques of Marx's view would assert that new, more sophisticated
> > relationships exist with our abstracted labour, (pride, job
> > satisfaction, etc) but few people would work without pay.)
>
>
> This is also an argument about commodity fetishism - as I'm sure you
> understand.
Anyone who opens a glossy magazine, turns on a TV, or walks
past a billboard, (or environmental devastation) understands
about commodity fetishism, at least intuitively.
> And Marx's argument also related to the appalling, dehumanising
> working conditions of the industrial revolution period.
> This hasn't REALLY changed completely. Working conditions are appalling in
> the Third World, while here an Melbourne call centers are the 'information
> economy's' modern sweatshops. Pressure is placed on such workers to prevent
> them from organising - as a consequence of the Reserve Army of Labour.
Key point.
The first freedom is freedom FROM ..fear.
> Also, modern economies, which greater and greater divisions of intellectual
> and manual labour, bring alienation in Marx's sense, the previously
> unimagined levels... Unfortunately, in part this is an inevtiable aspect of
> modernity - once that even socialism cannot negate.
>
> > Alienation has become a central concept of modern psychology
> > and sociology, largely seperated from the labour theory Marx
> > developed. But it still conveys the sense of 'loss of meaning
> > and purpose' which Marx identified with industrialization.
>
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>
> > >
> > > > And there is much
> > > > else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> > > > 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> > > > 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> > > > my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> > > > if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as
> opposed
> > > > to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist
> discourse.
> > >
> > > The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
>
>
> Yes - new technologies, the decline of the LOGIC of class struggle, coming
> to terms with the necessity of (democratic or socialised) markets, coming to
> terms with the decline of the industrial working class and traditional class
> consciousness.
I see the decline of the logic of class struggle as not due to
new technology (which as argued, Marx was good at anticipating)
but the global nature of the world economy.
Capital travels freely without regard to borders.
Labour does not.
Unions are thus powerless becasue any gains they win, merely
results in the production being moved to an offshore sweatshop
with weak labour laws.
The key is not immigration control, that does nothing to
solbe the problem, but in strong international labout laws.
ie, MORE, not less globalization, globalization of the same laws
we use to regulate capital in the domestic economy.
Naturally the establishment prefers to see immigration,
not economics, as the key issues. Scapegoats have so much more
potential for smoke and mirrors; heat, rather than light.
>
>
> > So if Marxism anticipates new technology, and its revolutionary
> > social and political consequences, the 'changing circumstances'
> > which render classical Marxism 'inadequate' must, at least in part,
> > lie elsewhere. Attempts to account for the dramatic 'circumstances'
> > Marx could not have anticipated have been made by a succession of
> > Marxists, neo-Marxists, and assorted borrowers of Hegels dialectic,
> > such as Gramsci and Marcuse, ..even Tristan and Ralston Saul.
> >
> > Chief among these 'circumstances' are the horrors of the Lenninist
> > Red Terror, Stalinism, Soviet stagnation, opression in E Europe,
> > mass deaths during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap forward,
> > the collapse of the Soviets and Chinese Communist revisionsim.
> > These failures of notionally 'marxist' states sapped the intellectual
> > vigour of the left. (Although none of them grew out of Marx's
> > predictions for the emergence of socialist and communist societies,
> > which he correctly said would be post-capitalist, not post-fuedal
> > (Russia, China)".
> >
> > In the West, feminism, birth control, concentrated Mass Media,
> > globalisation, materialism, and a plethora of fads and
> > false consciousness have to be accounted for.
>
>
> Yes, you're right here also. I feel the same way.
But my key point was that changes in technology were Marx's forte,
the very foundation of his theories of social formation.
Other fundamental social, psychological and even spiritual changes
have occurred.
>
>
> > >
> > > > Liberal constitutionalist values and ideas are fine - but radical
> social
> > > > theorists should be clear headed enough to remember that, quite
> frankly,
> > > > 'the real world doesn't work like that'.
> > >
> > > That goes for any ideology that hasn't been thought through; ie, all of
> > > them except Macchiavelli's.
>
>
> Yes, well Machiavelli had a way of coming to grips with the brutal realities
> of power. For me, however, once you resort to a conspiratorial mode of
> organisation, you disempower the masses and rank and file activists, and
> most likely become beholden to interests to whom your ideology is nothing
> but a tool - to be exploited or discarded as is convenient: which is why we
> need an autonomous socialist movement based upon the activity, participation
> and final control, of rank and file activists.
I will leave you to argue The Prince with one of his subjects.
>
>
> > > > Anyway - you know, if 'The Age' can print an article of Boris
> Frankel's -
> > > > who is an excellent Australian social theorist and radical, and who
> has
> > > > roundly condemned 'Post-Marxist Populism', then I think they should be
> able
> > > > to print material from a democratic socialist such as myself.
> >
> > Have you analysed why they don't?
> >
> > The ability of capitalist media to permit, even promote, absorb,
> > use, and assimilate radical critiques has been one of the stumbling
> > blocks for revolutionary theorists.
> >
> > Then again, earnest, jargon filled essays on abstruse social
> > theories are hardly going to threaten the footy and Sex in the City,
> > are they?
>
>
> Well, I don't think my essays are that 'jargon filled'.
I thought the comparison aded the requisite touch of irony.
Consider the history of the genre.
Compare and contrast it to mass culture.
> Although I have to
> say that swaying the middle
> class intellectual layers is, in itself, incredibly important.
Much less so when they are demonized and marginalised
by the powers that be.
> But what we
> really need are progressive tabloids,
> aimed at ordinary Australian workers, speaking to them in a language they
> can understand...
Didn't I see you chiding people for their brutality?
Perhaps if Marxists had sex with each others wives they could
grab a headline.
> But you see, no one on the Left has the capital to mount
> such a challenge.. And so we have to make do with what we've got.
>
> Thanks for you reply - I really appreciated your ideas.
>
>
> I urge you to join a broadleft egroup I moderate. We have almost 50
> members, and we REALLY
> need active posters to contribute just the kind of material you've been
> writing about here.
>
> The URL is:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/broadleft/
>
>
> I hope to see you there.
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> Tristan
I know the left, I am not of the left.
fasgnadh
> Peter Wilks wrote
> in <aa94cd37.02040...@posting.google.com>:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > "Tristan" wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > > alienation, expanded reproduction and capitalist crisis, and the
> > > > Marxist critique of liberal constitutionalism.
> > >
> > > Erk. All those labels. I can only guess at their meanings through
> > > the English language, which no doubt is not a good guide.
> >
> > Is there a better way of accessing meaning of English words,
> > (even if the texts in which they are found have been translated
> > from German)?
>
> You missed the point (not unusual with you). I was referring to the
> technical terms, not the individual words.
So was he, dumbo, as those 'technical terms' (which are also
'individual words' ;-) were translated from the German.
It now seems obvious why he queried your complaints about English,
it clearly isn't your mother tongue! B^D
Yesterday you didn't even know what alienation is,
today you are telling us that technical terms are not
individual words. B^p
> ----snip----
>
> > > > And there is much
> > > > else besides I haven't mentioned. But you see, there are plenty of
> > > > 'Marxists' for whom the kind of revisionism I am engaged in
> > > > 'immediately excommunicates me from the Marxist church'. And yet
> > > > my revisionism, I think, is of the abolutely necessary sort - that is,
> > > > if socialist theory is to respond to changing circumstances - as opposed
> > > > to merely internalising the dominant liberal constitutionalist discourse.
> > >
> > > The changing circumstances being what? New technologies?
> >
> > In large part.
>
> ----snip----
>
> > So if Marxism anticipates new technology, and its revolutionary
> > social and political consequences, the 'changing circumstances'
> > which render classical Marxism 'inadequate' must, at least in part,
> > lie elsewhere.
>
> Or you could enhance your understanding by simply admitting that it
> doesn't anticipate, but merely predicts, new technology.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAAAAA!
I can't wait for your explanation of how something
which Marx 'predicted' was not 'anticipated' by him! B^D
BTW, How are you going in trying to get the top of that box?
fasgnadh
NedLie # 1:
nen...@news.apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote in message news:<slrnaai0nh....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz>...
> fasgnadh wrote
> <9617651d.02040...@posting.google.com>
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > fasgnadh wrote
>
(Neds forgery of the attribution lines undone.
It is merely another demonstration of what an obsessive
control freak he is ;- )
>
> ----snip----
Unsnip to show every principle of open, demodcatic free speech
Ned attempted to subvert:
> >>> > Consider this:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed
to
>>> > take part in a discourse.
Because Ned and Lisa failed in their bid to control who could post.
ROFLMAO!
>>> >
>>> > 2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.
Even if Ned and Lisa don't like it B^D
>>> >
>>> > 2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into
the
>>> > discourse.
Even views Ned and Lisa object to! LOL!
>>> >
>>> > 2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and
needs.
Even Ned and Lisa's desire for hegemonic control was allowed to
be expressed...AND THE POPULAR REJECTION OF IT! B^D
Democracy at work, no wonder Ned hates it! B^)
>>> >
>>> > 3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external
coercion, from
>>> > exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2).
("Diskursethik,"
>>> > 86)
And so Ned and Lisa's attempt to curb fre speech was defeated,
and their tiny, ideologically motivated coven, routed and humiliated.
This view can be brought to you becasue of the defeat of their
neo-fascism.
>>> >
>>> > For the record, those I am in ideological struggle with breached
1-3
>>> > above by;
And Che and the other true-blues won that struggle decisively!
Woooooo HOOOO! B^D
>> >
>> > For the record, there's nothing ideological about it. Guano
sought from
>> > the start to be the newsgroup's master and star performer. He was
rejected,
>> > and has been spitting the dummy ever since.
But he and the true-blues WON the popular vote YOU SOUGHT,
and you LOST!
Your venomous dummy spitting is obvious to all, loser! B^D
> >
> > 'Master' - exercising control of what is posted and by whom.
> > That is precisely what Ned and Lisa proposed.
> > A clear breach of 3.
>
> Here he puts his own spin on what I said.
Its simple English and perfectly clear, when Lisa and
you proposed to control what people could post, you
tried to place a democratic, open, free speech NG under
your editorial control.
Pocket Nazi.
BTW, Like the brownshirts before you... YOU FAILED! B^D
>
> > That is precisely what Ned and Lisa proposed.
>
> That's two lies.
One Ned Lie / day is enough:
Control IS what Ned and Lisa proposed to exercise.
They were rejected and humiliated by the true-blues! B^)
Although clearly he cant face it anymore
and wants to slime out of it and blame Lisa.
What a weasel
What a sook! B^D
>
> I did not make the moderation proposal:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Ned pleads "I vas just following orders!" B^D
I never said YOU made the *moderation proposal*, because that was
the role traditionally given to the front person, Lisa,
I said you and Lisa proposed **"exercising control"**.
Learn to read, fuckwit, and learn to live with the
obvious fact that your intention to control the NG
was a clear and irrefutable breach of the Habermas
principles you were only moments ago pretending to approve! B^D
AND YOU GOT REJECTED AS THE RANK OLIGARCH YOU
CLEARLY DESIRE TO BE! B^D
> I supported it.
It needed support, it was a fat poxy whore of a proposal,
And you were in it up to your armpits, you rank oligarch!
..and everyone knew Lisa was the front-puppet and you
the organ grinder.
This was clear by who made the running:
Searched Groups for "moderation" group:aus.culture.true-blue
author:latham. Results 1 - 10 of about 96. Search took 0.41 seconds
Searched Groups for "moderation" group:aus.culture.true-blue
author:lisa. Results 1 - 10 of about 18. Search took 0.36 seconds
> Mastery was not the object of the proposal: topicality was.
You sought control over what topics could be posted, democrats
and believers in free speech, and anyone who has seen you in action,
were horrified at your proposed takeover.
So despite all your ring-ins for the vote, despite the partisan
political intervention of the now discredited and moribund Ausadmin,
... YOU LOST! B^D
Keep sooking.. it is music to democrats ears! B^D