<< SHOULD'VE TAKEN SAD PILLS ~ MAIN ~ INTERVIEW MOVES ON >>

DENTIST DRILLED

Back in January, this site warned Melbourne court invitees to think twice before engaging the services of leftoid lawyer Jeremy Sear. Sadly, Dr George Varnavides didn’t heed that advice:

A Melbourne man has become Australia’s first dentist to be jailed for professional misconduct for repeatedly breaching orders not to practice.

Dr George Varnavides, 70, was sentenced to three months’ jail today after pleading guilty to being in contempt of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ...

Outside the hearing, counsel for Dr Varnavides, Jeremy Sear, said he did not know if his client would appeal.

You’d think a lawyer might know something like that.

(Via Rene)

UPDATE. Jeremy claims he was misquoted: “Refusing to answer a reporter with ‘I cannot comment on that at this stage’ is not the same as saying ‘I don’t know’, but may end up being written up as such anyway.”

UPDATE II. An “anonymous married man who definitely does not work in the legal profession” makes an appearance at Spin Starts Here.

UPDATE III. Logged in as LGWS (Lookin’ Good, Wally Sear!) someone who denies being Jeremy (hey, who wouldn’t?) is chattering away in comments like an angry squirrel.

Posted by Tim B. on 04/04/2006 at 10:41 AM
  1. Both sides are working closely together, to bridge the gap.

    Posted by El Cid on 2006 04 04 at 11:14 AM • permalink

  2. Later good people, when you see me next, I shall be a convicted criminal…court today…vehicular ILLEGAL PASSING.

    Expect to see my mug shot, in papers across the U.S.

    Posted by El Cid on 2006 04 04 at 11:22 AM • permalink

  3. #2 El Cid:
    What’s a Wunderburger ... is it a map of Tassie? ...

    Posted by Stevo on 2006 04 04 at 11:25 AM • permalink

  4. Stevo

    I have enough problems, ain’t touchin’ the “Tassie” thing (if that means what I think it means…lol).

    As far as the Wunderburger…ummmm, my guess would be…when you start frying a big old gutbomber piece of ground meat, large enough to fit on a one pound (U.S.) bun….Now that’s a Wunderburger....:).

    Posted by El Cid on 2006 04 04 at 11:35 AM • permalink

  5. Thanks for the clarification ... I’ll assume both are good eating ... :)

    Posted by Stevo on 2006 04 04 at 11:40 AM • permalink

  6. I’m taking up a collection to hire Jeremy Sear to serve as counsel for Zacarias Moussaoui, the terrorist who has just been found eligible for the death penalty by a federal jury. This will insure that Moussaoui gets the chair - twice.

    Posted by paco on 2006 04 04 at 11:55 AM • permalink

  7. It’s probably good than anonymous lefty is representing a 70 year old man. At least the poor old bugger wont serve anymore than 30 years in gaol (‘jail’ for Tim’s American readers).

    Paco- Jezza Sear wont have any trouble taking up that cause, he defends people like Moussaoui every chance he gets. That’s what puts the lefty in Anonymous Lefty… I dunno what the anon bit is about though… :S

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 04 04 at 12:27 PM • permalink

  8. Aren’t most of Sears’ clients pretty unappealing?

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 04 04 at 12:36 PM • permalink

  9. I’ll bet the memory of this conviction is Seared into the memory of Dr. Varnavides…..

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 04 at 12:58 PM • permalink

  10. What’s that old fart doing with all those young kids?

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 04 04 at 01:52 PM • permalink

  11. He provided no evidence of his financial state and no cogent evidence of his children’s psychological condition, his family’s social context or alternate care for his children if he was jailed, she said.

    To be fair to Wally though…yes, yes, I know…the old fart sounds like a nightmare to defend.

    Posted by JAFA on 2006 04 04 at 02:00 PM • permalink

  12. “guilty to being in contempt of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal”

    Well, seriously, after the two Danny’s case, most sensible people would regard VCAT with contempt.  Why should this poor dentist be singled out?

    Posted by 2dogs on 2006 04 04 at 02:36 PM • permalink

  13. Hang in there Jeremy. Solidarity and all that stuff.

    Keep the faith and someday your lawyerin’ may even match Ramsey Clark’s craptacular career.

    Posted by monkeyfan on 2006 04 04 at 06:15 PM • permalink

  14. LOL Now this is just classic , talk about lost causes . I wonder if the check will bounce? perhaps Jeremy will be paid in secondhand dental equipment , Im sure that “polly”(his cat) would have fun playing on it . :0)

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 04 at 07:09 PM • permalink

  15. Jeremy has made some clarifying comments about what he did or didn’t know. In case someone was asking. Which they aren’t. But in case they were. No reason, you know, that he would post these comments 4 1/2 hours after Tim did.

    Posted by CB on 2006 04 04 at 07:38 PM • permalink

  16. It’s a pity for Jezza that Dr George wasn’t a plastic surgeon. Could have got some work done on that chin in payment.

    Sorry for being horribly nasty but that is what McChimpler Oiliburton Zionpretzel’s world has reduced me to.

    Posted by TonyD on 2006 04 04 at 07:51 PM • permalink

  17. Yes, funny that AL decided to write that not-very-well-veiled response, given that he maintains he’s not Jeremy Sear. Why the interest in what Tim writes about some random lawyer, even if Tim has previously connected that lawyer to AL’s identity…if it’s all ludicrous nonsense anyway, why bother?

    I’ll say it again, Jeremy’s problem isn’t so much that he might be a bad lawyer per se (I’m obviously unable to check that), but that he doesn’t seem very bright to begin with. No wonder he feels right at home on the Left.

    Posted by PW on 2006 04 04 at 07:55 PM • permalink

  18. Incidentally, I wonder if anyone’s put in a grant proposal for taking Jeremy and Gianna and breeding the most stupid-but-completely-unaware-of-it person ever yet.

    Posted by PW on 2006 04 04 at 07:59 PM • permalink

  19. clearly tim b can’t understand that what is printed on news.com.au may have in fact been misquoted, but then as usual he hasn’t done any investigating (something actual journalists do).

    even the herald sun today has an article detailing this dr’s chequered past and original conviction in 2003, and his guilty plea in january when he wasn’t represented by mr w sears.

    perhaps an apology is in order?

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:05 PM • permalink

  20. PW, my eyes genuinely popped in horror at that thought.

    Posted by Nic on 2006 04 04 at 09:06 PM • permalink

  21. An apology owed to whom, LGWS? Seriously, to whom is an apology to be directed? and furthermore, why?

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 04 at 09:10 PM • permalink

  22. are you kidding MF? (nice initials btw ;-)

    clearly tim b should apologise to mr sears for questioning his ability to do his job, after basing his questioning on someone misquoting him.

    i know i’m certainly questioning tim b’s ability to do his job based on the lack of context in this posting.

    exactly what qualifications does tim b even have? i’m guessing he was unable to even get into law at university, and perhaps this is why he holds a grudge to those who could?

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:15 PM • permalink

  23. LGWS
    My Oh My,  Jeremy claims you as Personal friend in real life you know that Tim is right so cut the crap.The name is SEAR not “SEARS” you may well offend your friend if you get his name wrong .and You queary Tim B’s qualifacations when you can’t even get the name right

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 04 at 09:36 PM • permalink

  24. Based on Sear’s historical attempts at obfuscation I wouldn’t take his characteristic denials that seriously.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 04 at 09:36 PM • permalink

  25. iain, are you saying i got tim’s name wrong? i would think you’d be the last person to question someone’s spelling ability!

    queary = query
    qualifacations = qualifications
    iain = illiterate

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:39 PM • permalink

  26. LGWS

    Good on you for sticking up for poor Mr Sear. It is about time someone took non-legal qualified and jealous Tim Bla-urrgh to task, but I despair that your demanded apology may not be forthcoming.

    Sometimes it takes a bigger man to say they are sorry. Therefore, I will take it upon myself, on behalf of the fair-minded participants on this blog, to do the right thing.

    On behalf of this blog, I would like to express my sincere regrets that in some of his public actions and statements, Jeremy Sear may have looked like a complete fuckwit. I for one, believe he is not a complete fuckwit, as there may yet be unexplored avenues.

    Please accept this apology in the spirit in which it is intended.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 09:41 PM • permalink

  27. exactly what qualifications does tim b even have? i’m guessing he was unable to even get into law at university, and perhaps this is why he holds a grudge to those who could?

    Ah, a noble defender of Mr. Sears!  Who resorts to the jealousy approach (a sort of ad hominen) in order to make a “point”.  Quite amusing…..especially given Sears earlier and incoherent response to his Kopyrighted Kitty Kat™.

    BTW, Tim and Andrea stock plenty of capitals…..feel free to make use of them, seeing as you used bolding without asking.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 04 at 09:45 PM • permalink

  28. if anyone made it their business to obsessively follow someone around, online and in real life, it would be very easy to make anybody look like a “complete fuckwit” by taking a small portion of their actions out of context.

    i’m sure you and i would look equally foolish if anyone put the time and effort into either of us, MM.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:47 PM • permalink

  29. I DO APOLOGISE. I HOPE THIS POST MAKES UP FOR ALL THE CAPITAL LETTERS I DIDN’T USE IN MY PREVIOUS POST. MAY I PLEASE CONTINUE TO USE BOLD TEXT SELECTIVELY TO MAKE A POINT?

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:48 PM • permalink

  30. #28 Alas if it were only a “small proportion” of his life. Based on what I have seen the great bulk of Mr Sear’s blogs/life is consistent with him being a fuckwit.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 04 at 09:53 PM • permalink

  31. LGWS
    Mate are you so desperate to defend your friend that all you can trot out is my spelling?, I’ll cough to not being the best speller in the world but You got your friend’s name wrong twice .(surely a worse offence than a couple of typo’s)
    You have pulled the spelling police line with me before it was stupid then and it is stupid now. Typically in the absence of any substance you trot out the insults .Why am I not surprised?

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 04 at 09:53 PM • permalink

  32. Man, I thought it was only me that got the context-aware obsessive stalkers

    Use up all the bold you like LG, you’re welcome here

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 09:57 PM • permalink

  33. Iain,

    I questioned Tim Blair’s qualifications, to which your response was questioning my spelling. (see posts #22 & 23, 31)

    My original question remains, to which you are welcome to respond.

    What are Tim Blair’s qualifications, and what is his motivation for attacking Mr Sear (thanks for the correction), without doing any kind of background research into his posting?

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 09:59 PM • permalink

  34. Thanks MM, I think i might stick around…

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:00 PM • permalink

  35. LG

    What are Tim Blair’s qualifications, and what is his motivation for attacking Mr Sear

    I’ll help you out.

    A: Tim is clearly has no qualifications to criticise people. He seems to think he can comment on just about anything without having done the relevant TAFE course.

    B: He is one of the obsessive out-of-context stalkers

    Hope this helps

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 10:04 PM • permalink

  36. perhaps an apology is in order?

    For what? Sear defended the fellow and he lost, hence the post ‘Back in January, this site warned Melbourne court invitees to think twice before engaging the services of leftoid lawyer Jeremy Sear’.

    The fact that the defendent has lost previous cases is immaterial. Tim is entirely correct, does he have to say yeahbutyeahbutnobut this is the first time Sear represented him? No.

    A loss is a loss.

    Posted by Nic on 2006 04 04 at 10:09 PM • permalink

  37. i’m not bothering with capitals, so don’t bother commenting

    nic, you say tim is entirely correct, and yet the facts are clearly disputed, by someone who was actually there.

    don’t you think that tim should have provided a little more context before questioning someone’s ability to do their job?

    i don’t mean to question your legal expertise, but if the guy was previously convicted, and had previously entered a guilty plea, and was there to receive his sentence, exactly what was mr sear meant to do… turn back time? question the barrister who originally worked on the case back in january, or even 2003?

    i’m no lawyer but i don’t think that a person will be found innocent after pleading guilty.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:20 PM • permalink

  38. Jeremy Sear reminds me of a paler, more-oppressed Nelson Mandela in many ways. I wonder if we could organise a pop concert at Wembley?

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 10:24 PM • permalink

  39. #37

    i’m no lawyer but i don’t think that a person will be found innocent after pleading guilty.

    Read the article!:

    A Melbourne man has become Australia’s first dentist to be jailed for professional misconduct for repeatedly breaching orders not to practice

    Got it yet? It is not about him being found guilty.

    I know why you and Sear are friends. You two share an interest in being ignorant.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 04 at 10:26 PM • permalink

  40. LGWS
    I would think that even you know that Tim is a Journalist reporting the facts. There is no point of law at issue here and I would see Tim’s post as being gently mocking rather than attacking as I might add have most of the comments. Some how I think that even the subject of our laughter could see the funny side of this. His post at Anonymous lefty is actually quite witty in its pretence.

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 04 at 10:27 PM • permalink

  41. according to the remarks on AL’s blog that tim linked to, he was merely there to hear the sentence, and from my (very limited) understanding he therefore had no input into the outcome at all.

    as i said, the full story is more interesting.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:31 PM • permalink

  42. Free-ee, Jer-emy Sear ba, ba, ba ba

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 10:32 PM • permalink

  43. who said anything about freeing him?

    i just think baseless, mis-informed attacks on anybody are petty and immature.

    but then if you guys and gals have nothing better to do with your time than anonymously attack someone you have never met, especially with such vehemence, you should ask yourselves why.

    i’m making myself a cup of coffee before i sit down and read all the cliched responses

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:40 PM • permalink

  44. #43

    if you guys and gals have nothing better to do with your time than anonymously attack someone you have never met, especially with such vehemence, you should ask yourselves why.

    Maybe you should ask Sear first.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 04 at 10:47 PM • permalink

  45. Maybe you should ask Sear first.

    i know you are, but what am i…?

    i’m rubber, you’re glue…?

    seriously lingus4, that’s the best response you can come up with? i’ve been reading AL for a few months now, and i’d love an example from you…

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:49 PM • permalink

  46. Jeremy’s turning into a bit of an online cult joke - kinda like Hoff or Chuck Norris without the looks or talent.
    The upside is the marketing potential - Jeremy could make some money selling chinless ‘Jeremy’ dolls or lunchboxes with pics of ‘Jeremy’ and his spastic cat.

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 04 at 10:51 PM • permalink

  47. You dont see the irony of what you posted? Hmmm OK from now on I will dumb it down for you.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 04 at 10:53 PM • permalink

  48. Mr Sear (LGWS?) says a couple of things, firstly that he was misquoted on his way out of court.  He would not be the first counsel that has happened to.  It would not have been unethical for him to have stated whether or not his client intended to lodge an appeal but certainly it would have been unwise as:

    Secondly Mr Sear claims that he was just the errand boy.  He was apparently briefed to collect the judgement, which assuming that the issue of costs as well as penalty had been previously argued,  could be performed by a trained monkey but hey a brief is a brief.

    Just so everyone can understand why Mr Sear would be so keen on everyone knowing that he said in effect no comment is that 1. it is unethical to comment on the merits of a decision during the currency of an appeal period and 2. as the client presumably wouldn’t have known Mr Sear from adam prior to that day he would have been far exceeding his brief which in all likelihood would have given to him by his chamber clerk on the basis of are you busy today? then could you go and collect judgement for X (X being a more senior member of chambers with presumably better things to do).

    All of this goes to demonstrate the dangers of trying to be a big man in the blogosphere and practice in a profession with a high public profile at the same time.

    Finally has Tim been fair to Mr Sear?  Well in due course the tribunal will publish its decision online and we will all be able to see.  The Tribunal’s decisions can be found here.

    Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 04 04 at 10:55 PM • permalink

  49. I’ve been reading Jeremy for longer than that. He still doesn’t make sense that often. The times he does, he sounds like he is coming over to the dark side.

    Posted by CB on 2006 04 04 at 10:56 PM • permalink

  50. BBBVBBB - i like it! the name, that is…

    are you saying that the Hoff or Chuck are good looking? is there something you want to share with us? not that there’s anything wrong with that…

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 10:57 PM • permalink

  51. jabl… you seem very educated on the whole proceedings, and by the looks of it you agree with what’s been said re: defending mr sear.

    just shows that when you do your homework (which obviously you have) that there is more to the story.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 11:02 PM • permalink

  52. Thanks jabl

    Now I understand why LG, sorry, Mr Sear is so worked up about this

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 11:11 PM • permalink

  53. dammit, mm has seen through my cunning disguise!

    just for future reference, i am not, have never been, and never will be jeremy sear, a lawyer, or even worthy of the amount of time and effort you all seem willing to put in.

    but good luck to you.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 11:29 PM • permalink

  54. LGWS:

    if you guys and gals have nothing better to do with your time than anonymously attack someone you have never met, especially with such vehemence, you should ask yourselves why.

    LGWS:

    seriously lingus4, that’s the best response you can come up with? i’ve been reading AL for a few months now, and i’d love an example from you…

    Question to LGWS - what is Anonymous Lefty’s “BoltWatch” other than an exercise in anonymously attacking someone he has never met, with considerable vehemence?

    So there is your example.  Please go away.

    Posted by yarraside on 2006 04 04 at 11:32 PM • permalink

  55. I can feel your pain LG. It is the great misfortune of so many people that we are not Jeremy Sear. But can we not dare to dream?

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 04 at 11:41 PM • permalink

  56. YS - boltwatch, which i don’t read anymore, criticised andrew bolt’s published opinion, not andrew bolt (correct me if it now makes personal attacks on him). the difference is clear.

    now you can go away.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 04 at 11:58 PM • permalink

  57. LGWS
    ” Boltwatch” where Mr Lefty writes a whole attack on Andrew Bolt based on a “so do I” response to a comment in Andrew Bolt’s Forum. Not One of the high point’s of our friend’s blogging history.

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 05 at 12:05 AM • permalink

  58. #46 those marketing ideas are fabbo, but likely to attract a badly drafted injunction from jemmy, who obviously has no other barristering collecting of senior partners’ lunches to do, as he has ample time to waste on getting all het up about blog comments

    Posted by KK on 2006 04 05 at 12:06 AM • permalink

  59. I take solace knowing that if we can’t all be him, we can all still strive to be like him.

    Oh, Jezza, I would give anything, just to be like him

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 12:31 AM • permalink

  60. I THINK THAT LGWS POSTING EXCLUSIVELY IN LOWER CASE IS UNFAIR TO HIS BLOGNAME, WHICH IS ENTIRELY IN UPPER CASE. 

    THEREFORE, WHENEVER I POST REGARDING LGWS, I WILL USE ALL UPPER CASE IN ORDER TO BALANCE THAT THREAD. 

    AND, OF COURSE, MY OWN BLOGNAME WILL CONTINUE TO USE THE APPROPRIATE CASE.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 12:34 AM • permalink

  61. Bagging Bolt’s personal appearance in photographs constitutes criticism of Bolt’s opinions, does it LGWS?

    With that sophistication of reasoning I’m surprised that you/AL’s client didn’t get life.

    BoltWatch link

    Posted by yarraside on 2006 04 05 at 12:37 AM • permalink

  62. LGWS, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING MR SEAR SO VOCIFEROUSLY?

    SOME INTERESTING POINTS ABOUT YOU:

    1.  YOU JOINED THIS BLOG ON 29 MARCH 2006, AND NEVER POSTED A THING UNTIL TODAY, AND ARE NOW VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE GOOD JEREMY SEAR.

    2.  IF ONE DOES A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR “LGWS SEAR” (LESS THE QUOTE MARKS, PLEASE”, THE NUMBER ONE HIT IS…..A POST ON IAIN HALL’S BLOG.  A POST WHERE JEREMY SEAR IS DEFENDED VOCIFEROUSLY.

    ARE THESE COINCIDENCES?  SURELY LGWS IS NOT A NON DE PLUME FOR JEREMY SEAR?

    THE WORLD AWAITS THE ANSWER!!!!!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 12:41 AM • permalink

  63. #57 Iain, what’s been the highpoint of your own blogging history? When you wrongly accused a television journalist of being a certain blogger, with no evidence whatsoever, and had to withdraw your claims for legal reasons?

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 12:43 AM • permalink

  64. As part of taking my first steps in my Near-ness to Sear-ness campaign, I would like to say I didn’t do it, stop stalking me, and I am not Jeremy Sear

    Thank you

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 12:44 AM • permalink

  65. I FORGOT TO NOTE A THIRD POINT…....THAT IS THE ONLY MEANINGFUL HIT ON THE GOOGLE SEARCH FOR “LGWS SEAR”.  THE REST ARE NOT RELATED TO BLOGGING IN ANY WAY.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 12:44 AM • permalink

  66. AND NOW WE HAVE THE AMORAL AND WRETCHED EMILY P JOINING IN THIS DEBATE.  AH, WE GET TO WATCH YET ANOTHER SHOW IN THAT WORLD FAMOUS VIRTURAL LOVE TRIANGLE OF EMILY, IAIN, AND JEREMY.

    OR IS THIS A LOVE QUADILATERAL, IF LGWS IS IN FACT NOT JEREMY? 

    STAY TUNED FOLKS, THIS IS GOING TO BE EXCITING!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 12:48 AM • permalink

  67. Time to check on the lint collection

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 12:58 AM • permalink

  68. AND NOW WE HAVE THE AMORAL AND WRETCHED EMILY P JOINING IN THIS DEBATE.

    Never a truer word said .
    I’m not going to go over old ground here Emily P/ Bridgit Gread can sprout all she likes .

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 05 at 12:58 AM • permalink

  69. you are all so very wrong. check my ip address if you don’t believe me. i am not jeremy sear, refer post #53.

    i do so enjoy your logic though, i try and point out flaws in tim blair’s logic, therefore i am jeremy sear!

    you guys are so clever. not.

    seriously, i can state categorically:

    1. i am not a lawyer.

    2. i have no university qualifications.

    3. i am not jeremy sear.

    4. you think i’m jeremy sear, because i deny being jeremy sear. by that logic, you are all jeremy sear. bravo.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 05 at 01:04 AM • permalink

  70. I will actually say that I believe LGWS when he says he is NOT Jeremy Sear . I have had run ins with him before at “Boltwatch”

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 05 at 01:07 AM • permalink

  71. There could be enough to fill my beanbag!

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 01:12 AM • permalink

  72. “i am not a lawyer ...”

    And this is meant to convince us you aren’t Jeremy Sear? Next from LGWS: “I do not have a chin.”

    Posted by Tim B. on 2006 04 05 at 01:13 AM • permalink

  73. thank you iain. credit where credit’s due, the man knows his prey.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 05 at 01:13 AM • permalink

  74. Gee - now Jeremy’s sent his girlfriend ‘Emily’ in to defend him.
    It’s like being mauled by sheep I tells ya!

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 05 at 01:15 AM • permalink

  75. Mmmmh…being mauled by sheep

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 01:18 AM • permalink

  76. #72 - Now that’s gold!

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 05 at 01:19 AM • permalink

  77. IAIN, I’ll TAKE YOUR WORD ON LGWS NOT BEING JEREMY.  TOO BAD, DUDE, NOW IT’S A VIRTUAL LOVE QUADILATERAL.  NO, WAIT, THAT’S GOOD.  FOR YOU.

    LGWS, IF YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER, HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DEFEND JEREMY?

    NYUK NYUK NYUK NYUK!!!!!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 01:24 AM • permalink

  78. Angry Squirrel?

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 04 05 at 01:38 AM • permalink

  79. fine.

    tim’s unable to respond to my valid criticism, so he’s playing the man.

    good for you tim.

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 05 at 01:40 AM • permalink

  80. i never came here to defend mr sear, merely to point out that tim b is incapable of accurate and responsible “journalism.”

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 05 at 01:42 AM • permalink

  81. Dammit

    One sit on the bean bag and the whole lint collection is squashed. Now I know why they use beans. Looks like back to the drawing board.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 01:43 AM • permalink

  82. Ah yes, all very predictable. As soon as I saw The Blur had posted yet another troll about Jeremy Sear / Mr Lefty, I knew this thread would contain a variety things:

    —Iain Hall’s usual obsessive-compulsive rants about how he took on Mr Lefty and thwarted him in blog-combat
    —Thinly-veiled inferences that Mr Lefty is a poor lawyer, supported by no evidence whatsoever
    —Another round of ‘no chin’ jokes
    —References to me as his ‘girlfriend’

    Let me strip away the pretense at semi-intelligent discussion condense this primary-school jibbering back to its fundamental meaning:

    —I’m bigger/tougher/smarter than Mr Lefty… nah nah nah nah nah
    —Mr Lefty sucks at lawyer-ing
    —Mr Lefty is sooooo ugly
    —Mr Lefty luvs Emily

    It’s good that most of you are well in touch with your inner-child.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 01:47 AM • permalink

  83. It’s good that most of you are well in touch with your inner-child.

    That’s a non-sequitor, coming from someone with absolutely no morals.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 01:53 AM • permalink

  84. From now on I will wear only red cotton shirts, so I can develop a rare pink lint collection. I am not sure yet how this will affect overall volume of the collection.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 01:54 AM • permalink

  85. alright, enough of this.

    bye all!

    Posted by LGWS on 2006 04 05 at 01:57 AM • permalink

  86. #83 Why do you say Emily has no morals Jeff?

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 02:03 AM • permalink

  87. That’s a non-sequitor (sic) coming from someone with absolutely no morals.

    Real_Jeffs, I’m sorry you’re angry. Perhaps your military service made you this way, or failed romances, or your isolation from the mainstream. Whatever it may be, I urge you to seek professional help.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 02:06 AM • permalink

  88. The pink lint collection was my idea, okay. If I see another batch on ebay, there will be trouble.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 02:14 AM • permalink

  89. You’re doomed, The_Real_JeffS, the very act of mocking leftist inanities is prima facie evidence of mental illness, donchya know.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 04 05 at 02:18 AM • permalink

  90. Wow with all of these capitals flying about I think I’ve gone deaf…

    LGWS you are a sad sack for defending Mr Sear.

    —Nora

    Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 04 05 at 02:19 AM • permalink

  91. I just put all the squashed beanbag lint pieces in the drier for 3 minutes and they have come out lighter and fluffier than ever!

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 02:30 AM • permalink

  92. —I’m bigger/tougher/smarter than Mr Lefty… nah nah nah nah nah
    —Mr Lefty sucks at lawyer-ing
    —Mr Lefty is sooooo ugly
    —Mr Lefty luvs Emily

    You forgot the ‘chin’ thing ‘Emily’-
    Remind ‘Jeremy’ to visualise Jay Leno just before he drifts off to sleep every night ok?
    Ya never know…

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 05 at 02:39 AM • permalink

  93. Real_Jeffs, I’m sorry you’re angry.

    What tells you that I’m angry?  Oh, wait, that’s right, ad hominem attack , projection, leftie, etc.  Right.

    Thanks for the reminder, Spiny.  For a moment I actually thought Emily was serious, y’know?  And then I remember what Emily P really is.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 02:40 AM • permalink

  94. #83 Why do you say Emily has no morals Jeff?

    lingus4, read Emily P’s comments starting
    here.  You could start earlier, but that was the clincher for me.

    That’s the way I see her.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 05 at 02:45 AM • permalink

  95. #94 I see your point Jeffs.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 03:11 AM • permalink

  96. Yep, that’s what I said. Child-murderers are child-murderers to me, whether they’re Palestinians on buses, militant Saudis hijacking planes, expansionist Jews or US bomber-pilots with bad intel. That’s not moral equivalence, it’s moral consistency. You, however, get to pick and choose who’s allowed to kill children and who’s not - your feigned outrage is a joke.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 03:28 AM • permalink

  97. #96 it is moral stupidity. There is something called intent which US pilots dont have and which Hamas does have.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 03:32 AM • permalink

  98. Google is neat! Chins galore!

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 05 at 03:34 AM • permalink

  99. I see what you mean Jeffs. Amoral is the best word for her.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 03:40 AM • permalink

  100. #91 i have invented a lint-stiffener comprising three parts gin & a poofteenth of quince cordial.  after a few of those, your lint-stuffed beanbag will feel aw sorft-n-fluuuffy mmmmm…zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by KK on 2006 04 05 at 04:05 AM • permalink

  101. 97 Lingus, the intent - indeed the whole function - of dropping bombs, firing missiles, laying mines or shooting artillery is to kill people whom you usually cannot see. Some of these may, and often are, children. If you cannot see the great flaw in this whole process than you must be patently blind.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 04:09 AM • permalink

  102. Amoral and ignorant.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 04:18 AM • permalink

  103. Abusive and incapable of a reasoned response.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 04:18 AM • permalink

  104. Aiiieee….my eyes…..

    Posted by CB on 2006 04 05 at 04:22 AM • permalink

  105. It is not abusive. It is an accurate assessment of your lack of knowledge and morality.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 04:31 AM • permalink

  106. If my knowledge is lacking you could expose it; if my morality is questionable you could explain why. But you can do neither - it seems you’re just another trumpeting echo.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 04:37 AM • permalink

  107. See Jeff’s post (#94)

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 04:39 AM • permalink

  108. #106 - ‘Emily strumpet crumpet’ -
    Why should anyone have to explain or justify anything to you?
    Who do you think you are anyway? the f#%king Queen mother?
    Go.away.chode.smoker.

    Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 04 05 at 04:58 AM • permalink

  109. Your morality is questionable in that you equate one group who intend to kill civillians with another group who seeks to avoid killing them.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 05:00 AM • permalink

  110. That rationale is not quite simplistic enough for Emily P to digest, Lingus and and Jeff_S.

    She can’t get past this basic logical arithmetic:

    Opposing sides act act against each other. People sometimes die due to the actions of each side against the other. Whaddaya get? COMPLETE EQUIVALENCE!

    See, it works just fine (as long as you ignore the small print).

    Has dear Emily P stopped to think about how many people would be dead if the Americans wanted to kill civilians?

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 06:30 AM • permalink

  111. Or perhaps I should say, “how many people would be dead if the Americans (and Israelis, for that matter) had the same motives and objectives as Hamas?”

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 06:47 AM • permalink

  112. 108 Oh dear, another angry little man, full of misplaced rage because mommy didn’t give him enough hugs.

    109 Lingus, it’s clear you know nothing about Zionist groups like Irgun or the Stern gang if you believe they ‘tried to avoid killing civilians’. Do a little reading and enlighten yourself. These groups did everything from mine railways used by combined civilian-military trains, to assassinating visiting Swedish mediators. If you want to maintain your Israel-friendly fantasy then you are either patently ignorant of history or a wilful revisionist of it.

    110 James, yes, if you kill civilians without wanting to do it then it’s A-O-K.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 06:48 AM • permalink

  113. No, Emily, it’s tragic and deeply regrettable.

    Geez, you truly don’t get it, do you?

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 06:55 AM • permalink

  114. 111 James, a lot more, certainly. There’s no doubt that Hamas’ objectives are extreme and unacceptable, and that elements in the US and Israel are working towards a peaceful solution in the Middle East. But Hamas is a relatively new phenomenon (less than 20 years old) and born from generations of violence. I’m sure trying to wipe it out will not solve anything.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 06:59 AM • permalink

  115. 113 James, whether it’s “intentional” or “tragic and regrettable”, they’re still dead. Whatever language you use to describe or justify it after the fact does not change a thing.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 07:00 AM • permalink

  116. Emily, who is more evil?  The person who accidentally runs over and kills your dog, or the person who swerves to deliberately hit and kill it?

    Posted by HisHineness on 2006 04 05 at 07:08 AM • permalink

  117. Some people seem to think that leaving tyrants in place is a “no cost” option.  It isn’t.

    Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 07:12 AM • permalink

  118. #115 Emily P.  Do you know why there is a legal distinction between murder and man-slaughter?

    Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 07:15 AM • permalink

  119. I think you’re missing the point. Motive affects the bodycount. Probability dictates that you cannot face a foe like Hamas or any of the terrorist militant Islamists without accruing some civilian casualties. However, the USA makes every effort to minimise civilian casualties. If they didn’t, many more would perish in the essential fight against Hamas and similar entities. Hamas and their terrorist brethren in other lands generally don’t give a shit how many innocents die for their personal crusades - which often actually target innocents. Therefore, people like Hamas need to be confronted in whatever theatre they appear in - using a number of methods, including open warfare. You disagree - that’s your prerogative. But I firmly believe that, if left to their own devices, the destructive ambitions of these people would cause the deaths of so many more. This is the price of doing nothing.

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 07:20 AM • permalink

  120. Anyway, that’s why there is no equivalence between Hamas and the Americans - because of all the people that don’t die due to the difference between ideologies.

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 07:22 AM • permalink

  121. Brett, tyrants only become tyrants because they’re given the means to do so. Remove a leader’s capacity to use force or his supporter base and he quickly turns from despot to two-bit demagogue. Bomb them when they’re at the height of their influence and you’ll create martyrs and causes where none should really exist.

    As for your query about murder and manslaughter, yes I’m aware of the distinction. I’m also aware that they’re both crimes.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 07:22 AM • permalink

  122. #121. Emily P. It is just that, if motives don’t matter, that why is there that distinction?

    Posted by Brett_McS on 2006 04 05 at 07:29 AM • permalink

  123. 119 James, fair enough, I respect your opinion. But I also believe that if more were done by Israel and moderate Palestinians to advance the peace process and solve the problems of clashes between Arab and Jewish settlers, Hamas would just be another loony fringe group - few Palestinians, if any, would be rushing to blow themselves up on buses. Military action is not the only option, it should be the last option; unfortunately the region has fallen into the habit of using it as the first option.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 07:30 AM • permalink

  124. I know this is beyond you to understand Emily but ....

    #112 Haganah is not the same as Irgun or the Stern. The rest of your post is based on your misconception or is a personal attack on Waterton.

    #115 see post #118. The distinction is there for a reason.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 08:11 AM • permalink

  125. I never said Haganah is the same as Irgun or Lehi; nor did I say Haganah or Irgun or the Stern gang is the same as Hamas, other than the fact they produce similar outcomes, ie. dead people. I’m quite confident that my knowledge of the history of Palestine in this period is, at the very least, equal to your own.

    And there was no personal attack on James Waterton, who seems one of the reasonable people here, but on the ridiculous poster from 108. Given that just about every post here seems to be prefaced with an insult, I’m not sure why you’d be complaining if I happened to make one.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 08:26 AM • permalink

  126. Like I said beyond you to understand.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 08:29 AM • permalink

  127. As it’s beyond you to just respond with anything other than one-liners like that.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 08:33 AM • permalink

  128. For crying out loud could this thread hijacking b**** be banned already? Pretty please?

    Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 04 05 at 09:26 AM • permalink

  129. For crying out loud could this thread hijacking b**** be banned already? Pretty please?

    sounds like a good plan to me

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 05 at 09:39 AM • permalink

  130. possibly that p stands for persistence.  while this is normally a virtue, i call upon the great web goddess andrea to ban emily from sear threads, on the grounds that diversions into anti-semitism tricked up as anti-zionism deprive us of valuable sear-bashing time

    Posted by KK on 2006 04 05 at 09:46 AM • permalink

  131. Bloody hell. Emily P again. Dreyfuze will be next. Remember him Emily? The snide little bigot deadbeat dickhead you applauded the other day on that other thread?  These people follow each other around like dancing drunks in a daisychain.

    “I never said Haganah is the same as ... Hamas”

    Why lie Emily? I can understand denial I guess up to a point. But why the bare-faced lying especially when what you said is on permanent record for anybody who could be bothered looking to see?

    Profoundly ignorant Emily P. And morally depraved.

    Try reading a book sometime. If necessary I will send you a photograph of one for identification purposes.

    Posted by geoff on 2006 04 05 at 10:08 AM • permalink

  132. Emily P - to be honest, I’m not a great fan of a lot of Israeli action. From what I’ve seen they will eat their own and shit on their friends if that’s what it takes. Take the theft of NZ passports, for instance. 

    However, I still think it’s important that Israel prevails in the region, as the only advocate of sound Western values.

    I saw a movie called Paradise Now recently. Very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Showed the lives of a couple of Palestinian men bleating about how they couldn’t tolerate being repressed, being treated as second class citizens. Thus they want to blow themselves up.

    I wondered how their wives and daughters felt considering they received such treatment from so many Palestinian Muslim men.

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 12:39 PM • permalink

  133. #100 Gin and quince? Thanks for the tip KK

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 05 at 05:46 PM • permalink

  134. Well here I am having what seems intelligent and polite discourse with James—and along comes one of Mr Lefty’s less amiable colleagues (128) and Iain the barely-literate stalker (129) and calls for my banning. Shows how much freedom of speech they truly endorse.

    And Geoff (130) what I indeed say is on record, so if you can’t read it’s no fault of mine.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 08:12 PM • permalink

  135. # I love your ability to selective recollect Emily.

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 08:23 PM • permalink

  136. and yes I was having an illiterate moment there when I posted above :)

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 04 05 at 08:45 PM • permalink

  137. Emily P/ Bridgit Gread
    Stay on topic and everyone will be amused by your posts but when you go of on a tangent (and argue that badly) why should we not say ENOUGH !!
    It is so telling that when I contribute less than 1% of the posts to this thread that you sight me as one of the villains here Do you miss me that much you can always try to argue with me at mine , the New Blog does not even have comment moderation enabled …….Yet

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 05 at 08:47 PM • permalink

  138. Yes, calm down boys, can’t you see we’re having a discourse here?

    Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 05 at 10:50 PM • permalink

  139. Stay on topic and everyone will be amused by your posts but when you go of (sic) on a tangent (and argue that badly) why should we not say ENOUGH !!

    Be honest with us, Iain, you’re just unhappy because we’re discussing Israeli-Palestinian relations and not your favourite subject, Mr Lefty. There’s more important things going on in the world than your worrying fixations with Melbourne lawyers.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 11:04 PM • permalink

  140. #132 James, agree with all points made. I’m very critical of Israeli responses to the region’s problems, then again the Palestinians are riven by faction, self-interest and corruption. As I said earlier, if mainstream Palestinians could organise and conduct themselves better then there’d be very little interest in or support for the murderous idiocy of Hamas or the Islamic Front.

    I haven’t seen the movie you discuss but I don’t doubt there’s an abundance of simplistic pro-Palestinian propaganda—and much of it is indeed supported by the radical Left. There’s no shortage of pro-Israeli propaganda though.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 05 at 11:09 PM • permalink

  141. This whole friggin thread has given me a tremendous headache. 
    Emily P. I am so sorry that you are such an angry person. I’m just wilted with sorrow.  I really don’t think I could feel any more sorrow for your anger. It must be your lack of military service, or perhaps just your lack of any form of useful service that has made you so angry.  So angry you can no longer distinguish between good or evil.  It is a scary world, isn’t it dear?  You poor scrared and angry girl. My soul is weaping with sorrow for you. 
    There is hope, however. There are marvelous medications on the market these days to help you. Yes! Help you! You with all of that fear and anger. Chin up! (no pun intended)

    Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 04 06 at 07:33 AM • permalink

  142. Bob, I find it hard to take you seriously when you prefix your name with “Texas”.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 06 at 07:50 AM • permalink

  143. Emily, I find it hard to take you seriously when you suffix your name with “P”.

    Posted by geoff on 2006 04 06 at 08:41 AM • permalink

  144. #133 yep & the best quinces to use are the fruit of japonicas.  most people grow these plants for their flowers but the fruit makes a glorious orange quince cordial to use with gin or voddy, or very delicious jelly for your brekky toast

    Posted by KK on 2006 04 06 at 09:05 AM • permalink

  145. #82 er that’s “gibbering” sorry.

    Posted by crash on 2006 04 06 at 09:36 AM • permalink

  146. Emily Precious 142

    Bob, I find it hard to take you seriously when you prefix your name with “Texas”.

    Perfect.
    That is EXACTLY how bigots think. 
    And honey, you are one.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 06 at 11:49 AM • permalink

  147. Wrong as usual, David. I just think prefacing your name with wherever you are from is just incredibly silly - and makes you look thus. I’m not of the opinion that calling myself Aussie Emily would reveal anything; just as you rebadging yourself according to whatever snakepit you came from would not reveal or explain much.

    Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 06 at 09:53 PM • permalink

  148. hey Dave, where is Stoop?  is it near Nar Nar Goon?  or are you actually on a stoop somewhere in the USA?  and how is anyone’s name relevant unless Emily changes her name to Emily P The Irritating Tit From Somewhere Really Toxic

    Posted by KK on 2006 04 07 at 12:40 AM • permalink

  149. KK, it’s sceptical persons like yourself who cause all the trouble in the world.  Next you’ll be telling me that you don’t believe that Mr & Mrs Dave didn’t decide to name their bouncing boy Stoop, back in 19-mumblety-mumb.

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 04 07 at 11:43 AM • permalink

  150. 150 comments about your esteemed legal career Jeremy, you must be so proud :o)

    Posted by Iain on 2006 04 08 at 09:03 PM • permalink

  151. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.