<< GAIA IS ANGRY ~ MAIN ~ PROHIBITION ON THE MARCH >>
PACKER ATTACKERS
Lots of squealing from the left—here’s a typical bunch—about Kerry Packer minimising his taxes. You’d think they’d be happy about this; after all, the less tax Packer paid, the less money was available to fund HoWARd’s imperial racism in Iraq (as it happens, a wholefoods company in Bega decided a few years ago to withhold 10% of its taxes in protest against the war; that particular tax-minimising “plan” was applauded by the taximus-maximus left).
But they’re wrong about Packer. In fact, he paid far too much. If anything, Packer was overly generous—every year he and his companies paid millions more than they needed to. Over his career, Packer possibly paid billions more than was strictly required.
In wages.
This is a concept the left struggles with; they’d prefer a businessman hand over his money to a government—any government, even a government they oppose—than directly to people (many thousands of people, in Packer’s case) attempting to earn a living. And then there’s Packer’s estimated $150 million given to charities; the left would presumably be happier if all of that had instead been delivered to the government, so that ... well, so that whatever. It’s not important.
Except the left wouldn’t be happier. They’d still despise Packer because he was rich. They’re simple like that; simple and hateful. They think that someone being wealthy means someone else is denied that wealth (oddly, in cases where this actually occurs—such as ABC newsreaders and radio presenters becoming rich via the taxes of those earning less than them—the left is silent).
Did I mention “hateful”? Take a look at this, from Anonymous Lefty (and be sure to read his commenters). AL happens to be a Melbourne lawyer; it may not have occurred to him that he’s wealthier than most people on earth. For that matter, he’s wealthier than most people in history. When our anonymous lawyer pal dies, let’s hope some poor bastard from sub-Saharan Africa points out his frivolous spending habits (playing with sparklers! drinking with retards!) and concludes that here was an Australian who truly “tried to invest in industries that made the world a better place.”
Bold words, those. From a lawyer.
UPDATE. Anonymous Lefty reveals his impoverished circumstances:
Tim, who of course has never tried starting out as a barrister (it involves saving up, quitting your job as a solicitor, undertaking an expensive course for three months - without pay - having to spend thousands setting up your business (buying wig and robes etc), and then, as you gradually build up that business, often waiting months before solicitors actually pay you. Yes, new barristers are truly rolling in it ...
It involves saving up! And buying a wig! Life’s tough.
UPDATE II. Peter Saunders on wages vs. taxes:
In 2001-02, for example, an average couple raising two school-age children received $508 worth of weekly government health and education services and income support payments. But they paid for $394 of this in their taxes. Their net tax-welfare gain was only $114; the rest was churned.
It is obviously inefficient for one government bureaucracy to take money from us while others hand it back. All of this churning also leads to higher taxes than are necessary, and this damages work incentives and reduces living standards.
(Via the Briefing Room)
UPDATE III. Some background on Packer, from the man himself. And this is interesting:
Anyone awaiting a heart or lung transplant in Sydney has relied on Mr Packer and St Vincent’s Hospital to get the organ that they need.
For almost 22 years one of Mr Packer’s private jets has been on permanent standby for flights to retrieve organs when they become available anywhere in Australia or New Zealand.
When referring to Packer giving away $150 million to charities Anonymous Lefty says (in comments) that he (Anonymous Lefty) didnt ... “deny that he (Packer) occasionally gave some of his money away? No. I simply pointed out that he didn’t do very much of it.
$150,000,000 isnt “very much”. I hope Anonymous Lefty is better legal matters than he is with numbers.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 11:43 AM • permalink... i mean is better with legal matters ..
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 11:53 AM • permalinkFrom what I’ve read here of the antics of your lefty crowd, if Kerry Packer had supported stupid leftist causes and promoted socialism and waged campaigns against John Howard and called Bush “the Chimpler in Chief” the air of Australia would probably be filled this minute with the sounds of sobbing leftists. Their ire against wealth only extends to wealthy people who aren’t part of the left wing. In my country wealthy Democrats are a-okay (I’ve never seen a Ted Kennedy supporter complain about how rich the senator is, but I’ve heard them mouth off about the Bush gazillions), but if you’re an independant or Republican rich person somehow your money is tainted.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 01 at 11:54 AM • permalinkIsn’t that Rowan Atkinson’s picture on AL’s site? Are we to assume, given the costume, that AL fancies himself to be a Regency buck? Sink me, what a braying ass the fellow is, damme if he isn’t.
The Left’s hypocrisy on the subject of personal wealth is no hardened that it is immune to logic, although Andrea has given it the old college try.
Jeez, what a bunch of whiners in those comments. I may not like certain rich people, but it’s not because they are rich, it’s because they are assholes who happen to be rich.
I wouldn’t want this “Anonymous Lefty” as my lawyer. He strikes me as being something of an idiot. Which is hardly surprising, given his blog nom de guerre.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 12:42 PM • permalinkA-double-men, Andrea & Melanie!
To paraphrase an alleged American Indian saying, Lefties speak with forked tongues.
G’morning, y’all. :-D
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 01 01 at 12:43 PM • permalinkThe classic contra of the Right in full plume: how-can-you-of-the-prosperous-middle-classes-condemn-the-rich. AL, if indeed a lawyer, may well be worth around $80,000 a year. Kerry Packer, through an accident of birth, was worth $7 billion (that’s 87,500 ALs, if your maths is not good). Ask the sub-Saharan guy which of these profligate bastards he despises the most. By your logic the ant can’t critique the elephant for being big because there’s a tick standing behind him and he might look hypocritical. Which is, incidentally, how it looks when someone accuses someone else of being “hateful” and then proceeds calls his acquaintances “retards”.
Emily said "Ask the sub-Saharan guy which of these profligate bastards he despises the most."
The above comment shows lefty logic. The left despise based on wealth. A hint Emily: despise people on the basis of their deeds not their wealth.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 12:55 PM • permalink#11: Ushie: I believe it’s our old friend, pidgin marxism, which tends to result in the felonious mangling of grammar and syntax, no matter what language is used as the platform for delivery. Not to mention the mangling of logic: for example, why should a denizen of Sub-Saharan Africa despise either bloke? Neither is responsible for the Sub-Saharan’s plight.
I do kind of like the idea of being in “full plume”, though. Although I’m a fedora man, myself, it might be interesting to don a 19th century admiral’s hat from time to time- but I’m not going to do it by myself; some of the rest of you lot will have to join me.
Emily,
Kerry Packer was not worth $7 billion at birth. He inherited a fraction of that sum. As the third generation of a wealthy family, Packer might have been expected to lose the lot.
Instead he increased it by as much as one million per day in the last year of his life. Burn with jealous rage, baby.
I’m not refuting Packer’s skill as a capitalist, a media proprietor or an entrepeneur. But if he was the saint suggested in the media… sorry, his media, he would indeed have blown the lot. You need to be an arse to be so successful, so spare us the metaphorical blow-jobs about his character and your faux-indignation at his critics.
And I’ll burn with jealous rage, if you just burn.
Ah yes, the irrational indignant rage of the Compassionate Left™. How could we manage without it?
You need to be an arse to be so successful
According to whom? Perhaps you should define “arse”.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 01 01 at 01:30 PM • permalinkEmily P: I’m so intersted in the sub-Saharan people. Please tell us more of your experiences with them. I love that stuff and fascinated on their thoughts on Kerry Packer.
By your logic the ant can’t critique the elephant for being big because there’s a tick standing behind him and he might look hypocritical
Is that what the sub-Saharans are sayin’? You seem to know them so well. Not me. I would have thought they would say, “Who is this dumbfuck that speaks for us? But then I don’t pretend to speak for them. Good on you for speaking up for them.All hail our Glorious Leader!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 01 at 01:43 PM • permalinkEmily, dear, I have a Ph. D. in English. You, however, don’t know how to write.
And I think you contradict yourself--what a surprise!--when you complain the Sub-Saharan (what an odd label) is starving because he doesn’t have a job. Kerry provided lots of jobs, did he not...?
Silly rabbit, Marx is for kids.
I have a Ph. D. in English
You and every other blog-a-lot on the Internet, darling.
you complain the Sub-Saharan (what an odd label) is starving because he doesn’t have a job. Kerry provided lots of jobs, did he not...?
Read post #18. I’m not interested in a hatchet job on Packer, some of what’s on AL’s blog is stupid. But the barbs thrown at AL are equally stupid. Perspective is a wonderful thing, end of story.
Silly rabbit, Marx is for kids.
Is it?!? I thought they might struggle with some of the big words. Perhaps you can read it to them, Dr English.
OK lets go back to your post 18 Emily:
” ... if he (Packer) was the saint suggested in the media… sorry, his media, he would indeed have blown the lot."
Who is suggesting he is a saint? I think the general view is that he was a big character who made a big contribution to Australia. A saint is something very different.
You need to be an arse to be so successful
Err why?
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 01:57 PM • permalink#26: Ushie, the haberdashery you describe is zoot, awroot and solid to boot. See you at the ball (where drinks will be served by Sub-Saharans attired in immaculate white dinner jackets and the traditional red fez -happy, incidentally, to be far from homelands characterized by unbrideled corruption, bloody one-party rule, muslim extremism, genocide, and “working” marxism ).
Who is suggesting he is a saint? I think the general view is that he was a big character who made a big contribution to Australia.
Yes I agree and I’ll leave it at that. A balanced view is all that’s required.
Err why?
Come on Malphy, capitalism is about competition, intrepid risk-taking, venture, ruthlessness, blunt and sometimes brutal man management, etc. etc. You don’t get to where Kezza got to without being an arsehole sometimes. Some of what’s on AL’s blog is not in dispute, like trashing a two-bob newspaper to intimdate the owner into selling. And if the means justifies the ends for you, well and good. Nobody should be dancing on his grave but likewise the ‘apotheosis of Kerry’ is a bit much to bear.
Emily has discreetly abandoned her sainthood nonsense for something called the ‘apotheosis of Kerry.’
Actually the two aren’t that far removed. Get Dr Usthie to help you with the big word; Wikipedia or dictionary.com might also be of assistance.
Next up: why should his family miss him? It’s appalling!
Ah sorry, we must only speak good of the dead out of respect for their families. Be sure to afford this same sentiment when Mr Hussein goes, he has a family after all! And John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, and Ralph Nader, and Mark Latham, and…
Thanks for admitting your error on the saint point.
On the “arse” issue:
Come on Malphy, capitalism is about competition, intrepid risk-taking, venture, ruthlessness, blunt and sometimes brutal man management, etc. etc.
Welcome to life Emily. Sometimes you need to be tough to advance your own interests. That is why we have laws. You can make moral judgements about Kerry and you may even want to venture some evidence to back up what you say. Until then you have made your point and made it badly.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 02:31 PM • permalinkWhile we’re talking PhDs, Emily, mine’s in ecclesiastical history. Actually, the two are very far removed. You’ve backed away from your sainthood claim because you can’t bring a single link to light that evidences the thesis. Your comparison of Saddam Hussein and Kerry Packer proves to me, love, that you’ve either been drinking or you’re just common and garden variety silly.
CL I have had dealings with “Emily P” before under the pen name “Bridgit Gread”. She is merely garden variety silly.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 02:36 PM • permalinkEcclesiastical history, huh? Well you’re an original web braggart, I’ll give you that. You know damn well they’re not that different in the context of this discussion. And “love”, your doctorate should have better placed you to recognise a comparison because one wasn’t made. If the principle about surviving family precluding criticism is applied on your own terms, then it’s hardly a principle at all.
Lets stick to the argument Emily. Where is your evidence Packer’s bad character?
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 02:45 PM • permalinkYou know damn well they’re not that different in the context of this discussion.
Emily, sweetheart, I took your advice about http://www.dictionary.com:
1. Exaltation to divine rank or stature; deification.
2. Elevation to a preeminent or transcendent position; glorification: “Many observers have tried to attribute Warhol’s current apotheosis to the subversive power of artistic vision” (Michiko Kakutani).
2. An exalted or glorified example: Their leader was the apotheosis of courage.1a. Abbr. St. or S. Christianity. A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.
1b. A person who has died and gone to heaven.
1c. Saint A member of any of various religious groups, especially a Latter-Day Saint.
2. An extremely virtuous person.The terms are related, but widely separated in meaning. So, C.L. scores! And Emptily is indeed merely a garden variety silly, banging on the keyboard in typical leftie fashion—without thought or reasoning. A virtual spewing of thoughts.
And I think Tim has it right—she’s burning with jealous rage. Burn, baby, burn!!!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 02:53 PM • permalinkEmily is it is laziness or ignorance which stops you from posting links to any evidence?
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 02:53 PM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeffs: was your mommy mean to you? Well done with the web-searching too, I’m very impressed! A gold star for you!
Ralph: was it your laziness or ignorance that prevented you from going to http://www.theage.com.au and finding the Opinion column? Sadly, I don’t think Barry’s “Rise and Rise of Kerry Packer” is online but I heartily recommend it to you, if you can spare the time from your busy social life.
Emily, they are completely different, love. And you did make a comparison.
The currency of that Ph.D. is rapidly deflating if you that’s the best you can muster, CL. I’m sorry but semantic games with disingenuous, patronising people make me sleepy.
Hey, Ralph here once wrote on another blog that he thought that people with degrees in the humanities should be serving McChicken burgers. What do you make of that, CL?
No Emily a link to the article not The Age is appropriate. This is your evidence I dont research your case for you.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 03:00 PM • permalinkThe currency of that Ph.D. is rapidly deflating
deflating… means that the “currency” is worth more, genius.
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2006 01 01 at 03:02 PM • permalinkOn further thought, Emily, the main reason that we are heaping scorn upon AL and crew (and other lefties by default) is that Packer demonstrated, using his own resources, that capitalism is a force that generally improves the standard of living for people.
Whereas, socialism (as espoused by those idiots on AL’s blog) would likely result in a lowered standard of living.
So, piss on the blogosphere all you want. The bottom line is that Packer (and other venture capitalists) do more to improve people’s lives than all of the left leaning idiots who have marched for a cause ever will. Ruthlessness ain’t pleasant, but it’s what is needed at times.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:03 PM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeffs: was your mommy mean to you? Well done with the web-searching too, I’m very impressed! A gold star for you!
And with the definitions that you never looked up in the first place right in front of you, and you start in with the insults, instead of responding to them.
OK, people, Emily has lost the argument. Packer wasn’t a saint, but he was a force for improvement, which I equate to “good”.
Better find a fire extinguisher, Emily, suitable for the combustible material that your soul is made of.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:06 PM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeffs #53, no argument with a lot of what you say. However AL’s criticisms of Packer, if they were indeed criticisms (from what I can see most are a matter of perspective anyway) were quite moderate, so they didn’t really warrant TB’s rant. Some of the comments on AL’s blog, though, were just plain stupid. That’s what I think, in a nutshell.
Wow!why should a denizen of Sub-Saharan Africa despise either bloke?
Well gee, let me think - because he’s unemployed and starving, and they’re not? Sheesh.
Posted by Emily P.
Conflatulus maximus.
</pidgin marxism>From what I’ve been able to gather, Sub Saharan Africans® were recent colonial serfs to Europeans, not Australians.
It was Europeans who jacked the piss out of Africa’s resources and they are still raping mother Africa - Only this time it’s under the yoke of Euro protectionism which leaves their former serfs beholden to the addictive table scraps of Europe’s dictator centric welfare.
Europe’s ‘enlightened’ social democracies have simply replaced the overt imperial enslavement of yesterday with this shined-shit covert usurpation of African resources which serves as the collective topical balm of choice for their tortured imperialist souls.
...Well there’s that and the pesky post-colonial tsunami of corrupt marxist dictatorships so beloved and nurtured by Europe’s learning impaired social engineering grandees. Through them, Marx’s dusty ghost continues to asphyxiate Sub-Saharan free market economies and in so doing drowns people’s ability to determine a rule of law with which to support a viable African brand of modern civilization.
Thanks for less than nothing Europe.
When African’s finally manage to grow their self-determined way out from under Europe’s helping boot, how are European elites going to support their house of cards?
Emily said:
However AL’s criticisms of Packer, if they were indeed criticisms (from what I can see most are a matter of perspective anyway) were quite moderate, so they didn’t really warrant TB’s rant.
Well this is not a criticism of you Emily it is my perspective: I’ve read arguments more cogent than yours in Archie comics. Go back to BoltWatch with your lefty mates.
Some of the comments on AL’s blog, though, were just plain stupid. That’s what I think, in a nutshell.
Another change in position? Give up Emily.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 03:14 PM • permalinkCL I dont think we are getting our evidence from Emily.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 03:16 PM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeffs #53, no argument with a lot of what you say. However AL’s criticisms of Packer, if they were indeed criticisms (from what I can see most are a matter of perspective anyway) were quite moderate, so they didn’t really warrant TB’s rant. Some of the comments on AL’s blog, though, were just plain stupid. That’s what I think, in a nutshell.
Perhaps, Emily, from your perspective. For myself, I read them, and found just about all them lacking in intelligence of any sort (except for most of Yobbo’s comments). Not for the anti-Packer drivel (which was pretty stupid as well), but for the all too common hypocritical, he-was-a-rich-and-selfish-bastard attitude of the left.
The average leftie in western nations are light years ahead of most Third World countries for standards of living. That standard came through capitalism, but these sillies ignore that, and pretty much toe the party line with their invective.
And, frankly, so do you. Plus you have the typical leftie trait of brushing off genuine facts and professional opinions, and presenting your opinions as facts. That you do so in an offensive manner merely adds fuel to the fire.
So I stand by my conclusion that you are garden variety silly, operating way above your level.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:16 PM • permalinkOoh sorry benson old chap, I missed you!
The currency of that Ph.D. is rapidly deflating…
deflating… means that the “currency” is worth more, genius.Semantics is all the rage in here tonight! Take note of the third point, in both respects:
de·flate Pronunciation Key (d-flt)
v. de·flat·ed, de·flat·ing, de·flates
v. tr.
To release contained air or gas from.
To collapse by releasing contained air or gas.
To reduce or lessen the size or importance of: Losing the contest deflated my ego.(Psssst! Emily! Here’s a hint! Try http://www.google.com, you might get lucky!)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:19 PM • permalinkI’ve read arguments more cogent than yours in Archie comics.
Thanks for the insight into your reading habits, Ralphie.
Go back to BoltWatch with your lefty mates.
Lefty! Lefty! You’re a dirty Lefty! That’s the kind of stuff you hear in a primary school Ralph. Please try harder, once you’ve finished your comic.
there’s only one interpretation of the term “deflate” with respect to “currency”, and that’s a fall in the price level.
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2006 01 01 at 03:20 PM • permalinkOK, people, Emily has lost the argument.
Hey, can you please post ‘Emily has a big bowl of muesli and a hot coffee in front of her’? Because if you say it, then it surely must make it so
I don’t know, Emily. What are you eating now? I do know what you’re arguing....it’s on my screen.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:21 PM • permalinkwhy should a denizen of Sub-Saharan Africa despise either bloke?
Well gee, let me think - because he’s unemployed and starving, and they’re not?
No, dear, that’s why you would do it. You’re part of that Compassionate Left, aren’t you?
BTW, “to deflate” has a very specific meaning when applied to currency. But you’re apparently not bright enough to understand why your badly-mixed metaphor doesn’t work even after benson kindly whooped you upside the head you with a clue-by-four.
For myself, I read them, and found just about all them lacking in intelligence of any sort (except for most of Yobbo’s comments).
You mean the guy who informed someone that they hang around with fuckwits? Yes, he sounded particularly intelligent.
Plus you have the typical leftie trait of brushing off genuine facts and professional opinions, and presenting your opinions as facts.
Sorry, I’ve seen no professional opinions in here. I’ve seen one or two in need of professional help, and a couple professing to have higher degrees in the liberal arts, but that’s about it. Professionals? I don’t think so, I just see people no more informed than myself or those they criticise. Whether I’m operating above my level is moot; so long as I’m operating above yours, and given the wild presumptions you make, I’m quite sure that’s the case.
Did you not watch Channel Nine at any stage on December 27th, CL?
Translation: I have no links.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 03:32 PM • permalinkEmily: RE your 59 to my 57
Speaking of “semantics”...If you were to bypass the embedded Chomsky Transliteration Chip, does the following extracted quote reveal a nuance you might have missed entirely?
From what I’ve been able to gather, Sub Saharan Africans® were recent colonial serfs to Europeans, not Australians.
Ralph, yes I have links.
Go to Google News, type in “Kerry Packer” and weigh up eulogies against realistic and balanced biographies. Look at ‘coverage’ and not for ‘a site’.And yes, I know this will be too hard for you and you’ll keep chirruping about links. But let’s face it, some things are just going to be too hard for some people.
You mean the guy who informed someone that they hang around with fuckwits? Yes, he sounded particularly intelligent.
Note the emphasized word:
For myself, I read them, and found just about all them lacking in intelligence of any sort (except for most of Yobbo’s comments).
Reading comprehension is so important, isn’t it?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:38 PM • permalinkEmily? Sweetie? You want a professional opinion? OK.
I’ve published six novels and edited an anthology of short fiction for major New York publishers.
I’m currently repackaging and annotating a new edition of several Restoration Comedies for a major theatrical publisher in the US.
I’ve lost count of my magazine articles, work for hire projects and screenplay options.
In addition I have worked successfully as a literary agent and even, for my sins, written criticism for paying publications.
A professional opinion… You are an inarticulate writer attempting to proselytise with clumsy prose and then blaming your audience for not grasping your poorly-presented preaching. In the course of this act of embarrassing self-assertion, you gracelessly and ignorantly insulted working professsional writers and people just back from relief work in the Middle East, who for damn sure have a better ear for the “voice of the Arab Street” than you have arrogated to yourself.
Your manners match your talent only in their common negligibility.
I recommend you contact Fairfax at once. They’re looking for a web hostess, I hear.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 01 at 03:41 PM • permalinkSorry, I’ve seen no professional opinions in here.
Ah? C.L. with a PhD in ecclesiastical history? Ushie with a PhD in English? Erm, yeah, right. Just another one of those inconvenient facts whizzing by your cranium, I betcha.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:42 PM • permalinkRichard, why is it that everyone on this site feels the need to post their damn CV? I haven’t posted anything of mine; for all you know I could be the editor of Vogue or the prime minister of Botswana.
It seems to me that when you engage in this kind of web-based self-pleasuring that you’re seeking my approval, or perhaps you’d like me to kowtow. I’m afraid the answer to both is ‘no’, and your insults carry no weight just because they’re prefaced by your alleged resume.
richard, my man! What a fabulous smack down! I am in awe of you.
Hey, isn’t captain a psychologist? Emily wants a professional opinion, we’ll get one that counts!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:45 PM • permalinkAh this forum is running true to form: firstly you’re a Marxist, secondly we’re all Ph.Ds and experts, thirdly abuse.
ushie, there are things called schools to help you with your inability to understand what I’ve written.
And I’ll burn with jealous rage, if you just burn.
Yes Malph, erstwhile Boltwatch troll and serial online masturbator…
The_Real_Jeffs: was your mommy mean to you?
Ralph: was it your laziness or ignorance…
I’ve seen one or two in need of professional help…
...I know this will be too hard for you...
Emily, you disdains some opinions because they weren’t “professional”. Granted, you didn’t ask for such, but I did point out the expertise behind them. This is part the “facts versus opinion” problem that you are ignoring.
So richard was perfectly right to step in as he did. And he wasn’t insulting....he was accurately describing your problems from his professional perspective.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 03:48 PM • permalink*Yawn* yes rog2, very original.
The_Real_Jeffs, yeah, I could post here that I’m really Dr. Emily Lecter MD and give you all a nice vicious little psychiatric analysis of how ‘x’ has severe amygdala dysfunction and how ‘y’ is demonstrating symptons of hebephrenic schizophrenia. Is that professional? I’m not sure how many psychiatrists give web-based diagnoses on politics blogs, and if so, how ‘professional’ they are. It would also make me a phenomenal liar as I’m not actually a psychiatrist, and in my opinion, most people who use the Internet aren’t always honest either (please forgive my scepticism, it’s based on some experience).
David Emily is a masochist. (see defintion 2)
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 03:58 PM • permalinkEmily, why are you here? You have posted nothing substantial or interesting. If your reason for registering here is to defend Anonymous Lefty (now, there’s a brave lad), you have failed miserably, because your feeble and unimaginative insults and weak arguments have so far had the effect of making people here dislike AL even more, since if you are an example of the sort of fans he has…
And just as a side note, I thought you lefties (or whatever you designate yourself) were all about compassion and making the world a better place. How does going onto a web forum and insulting the people there because they don’t think like you do demonstrate this? Instead it makes you look as if you are more interested in the things you impute to your enemies: winning, crushing the opposition, destroying your opponent, ruthlessly taking over systems and organizations, and so on.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 01 at 03:59 PM • permalinkI see the English language in its dynamic and profound ambiguity.
No, you’re seeing ambiguity where none exists in this case. This is generally the mark of somebody who’s not completely clear on that whole “language” concept.
Emily, you disdain some opinions because they weren’t “professional”.
She’s moving the goalposts. Non-professionals are supposedly unable to have a worthwhile opinion, while professionals aren’t allowed to have one, because that would entail them mentioning their credentials. Which is, uh, bad, for some reason.
If she wasn’t such a hyperactive poster, I’d already be bored by her inane tripe. As it is, we’re at least being presented with new tripe every five minutes.
Hi Andrea, please read post #11 and tell me who insulted who first? As to whether I’m ‘defending’ AL, to be honest I don’t feel that strongly about it to concur with his comments - and I certainly don’t like what’s been written in the comments of his blog. However TB has left fly on AL, associating him with “retards” (which itself is abusive) and drawing the most ludicrous principle: that lawyers, being wealthy, have no right to criticise those who are infinitely more wealthy.
Anyway, I disagree with TB on both counts, which is why I originally posted; what has transpired since in the forum has been banter, sometimes good-humoured and sometimes not. I thank the posters for the lively conversation and wish them all good day and a happy New Year :-)
Money isn’t wealth ; the thing to look at is what he spends vs what he does for somebody else.
Most old people spend more than they do for somebody else, being retired ; most young people support this by doing more than they spend.
If the demographics is tolerable, it works out for everybody.
Now, you take your typical lefty victim, and he does nothing and accepts welfare in return, which is more of a load than your typical rich guy is putting on things.
(Test your economics intuition : if you take your money and put it in a mattress, you have made an interest-free loan to the government. You have not spent it, so you’ve made no demand of anybody, and the government in the meantime notices that the money supply is a little low and simply reprints your dollars and spends them itself.
It would also make me a phenomenal liar as I’m not actually a psychiatrist, and in my opinion, most people who use the Internet aren’t always honest either (please forgive my scepticism, it’s based on some experience).
Y’know, when people present facts to back up their opinions, whereas you post opinions as facts (and refuse to even post a simple link), well, it’s
amusinghypocritical to complain about “most” people not being honest on the INTERNET.Moving the goalposts, indeed.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 04:13 PM • permalinkfor all you know I could be the editor of Vogue or the prime minister of Botswana.
Emily, I am comfortable in my assumption that you have never in your life done anything, anywhere, of the slightest note.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 01 at 04:14 PM • permalinkYou OK, ushie? Better drink some water. Or beer.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 04:16 PM • permalink#86: Richard, my dear fellow, Restoration Comedies? You mean, Congreve, Wycherley, et al? Excellent! Love the stuff myself, though my main literary interest is 18th century English literature. Rove will be impressed (and Wronwright’s fingers will start that spastic curling motion).
Now, if I may say so, Emily has hung in there and given of her best, and she’s generated some spirited debate (if nothing else, she provoked Monkeyfan into giving as blunt and succint - and true - an analysis of the problems of Sub-Saharan Africa as I’ve seen lately; and I know you’ll find this tiresome, Emily, but it is a subject on which I do have some professional expertise). Anyway, I’ve found the whole thing rather stimulating. And remember, Ushie, I am first on your dance card at the Plumed Hat Ball.
Tim Blair: Over his career, Packer possibly paid billions more than was strictly required. In wages.
Emily P.: how-can-you-of-the-prosperous-middle-classes-condemn-the-rich...
Tim — Obviously you are not a sophisticated and nuanced progressive or you would realize that wages don’t count because to a true progressive, we’re all entitled to be paid to exist (ideally with someone other than the progressive’s money).
We are witnessing in Emily, AL and their commenters the classic dichotomy:
A working man and a dolist are walking past a mansion.
Dolist: Some day I’ll get the bastard who lives in that mansion.
Working man: Some day I’ll get that mansion.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 01 at 04:31 PM • permalinkRE #14, ushie, for myself, I’d rather wear a British pith helmet, than look like a peacock. But if it impresses the ladies, hey, go for it!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 04:33 PM • permalinkPaco — ‘sdeath, I do love them so! Bawd! drink! greed! pretense!... is there anything better worth an evening ‘mongst the vizards or railing along wits’ row in the pit? Rat me if I’m not tempted to put pen to one meself!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 01 at 04:42 PM • permalinkEmily / Bridgit
Your argument has not improved with your change of nom de plume (sadly) Why do you so hate success in others. I don’t like the fawning praise that has been exhibited by many in the media but there are a few things that even a Pseudo Marxists (who like the historical analysis but not the economic programs) like you can appreciate. Kerry Packer was very canny and smart in the way he did business and the way he chose to face his own death was admirable. He knew that it was inevitable but still worked to finalise major business deals, visited friends to say good byes Then met his end at home with dignity. To use an Aussie term he had a “NO BULLSHIT” death. All you can do is evoke the politics of envy because this man was wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. You are consistent at least in thatPosted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 04:45 PM • permalinkLet’s just hoist Anonymous Lefty on his own petard, by removing his anonymity?
Who is this clown?
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 01 at 04:51 PM • permalinkEmily Psycho wrote:
Hi Andrea, please read post #11 and tell me who insulted who first?
Er, that would be you, in comment (not post) #10:
he classic contra of the Right in full plume
And
these profligate bastards
Then again, maybe someone who signs off with “it’s been fun have a happy new year!” after being completely nasty thinks “bastard” isn’t a particularly insulting thing to say.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 01 at 04:53 PM • permalinkOafish: it wouldn’t surprise me if Anonymous Lefty turns out to be “Emily P.” herself, or “Bridget,” or whatever he/she decides to call herself.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 01 at 04:54 PM • permalinkOafish,
it is easy to find out who Anonymous lefty / mr lefty is he has left lots of clues to his identity in his blogs, but just to save you the detective leg work it is all in My blog “being Nice”, and my how he is upset that the truth is out now :o)I have been threatened with writs for defamation and now he won’t let me play in his sandpit any more :o(Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 05:03 PM • permalinkIn Emily’s World:
We must, at least till the revolution, put up with the existence of (shudder) MONEY. But if you have any MONEY left over at the end of the week you are a profligate bastard and must be despised. The more MONEY you have to spare or, horrors, invest, the more despicable you are.
Since most people in the world are too busy earning and spending their own MONEY to despise anyone who has more MONEY than they do, the annual accounts of all profligate bastards are presented to a committee of skinny but computationally brilliant sub-Saharan Africans. Having barely enough MONEY to keep themselves in yams, these are the world’s official Least Despicable People. They are thus perfectly qualified to rank said bastards in order of despicability.
The rest of the sub-Saharan Africans then set about despising these despicable bastards, with vehemence directly proportional to their despicability rating.
The Africans evidently do this work for free.Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 01 01 at 05:05 PM • permalinkMemo for Packer family lawyers: it’s Jeremy Sear.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 01 at 05:07 PM • permalinkHey, I just googled Jeremy Sear, and the highest ranked hit was on the “Rodney Croome - Gay Activist” website.
Yeah, I’m oafish, I’m infantile.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 01 at 05:09 PM • permalinkAndrea
I recognise the prose and rhetorical style of Emily P it is the same as the prose offered by “Bridgit Gread “ who comments at “boltwatch” her insult levelled at Ralph Malph is a dead give away as is her twisted logic and sloppy argument hence my addressing her as Emily/Bridgit in comment 112Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 05:11 PM • permalinkMore details about Anonymous Lefty.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 01 at 05:11 PM • permalinkYes OAI that is right but his full name is Walter Jeremy Sear lets make sure we get it correct , I have been trying to get him to confirm or deny my claim that He is MrLefty /Anonymouslefty but although he abuses me in return he won’t confirm ,OR deny my claims of his identity. Probably he feels that to confirm would mean to greater loss of face but he knows that to deny would be a very serious breach of his professional ethics because that would be a lie in a public forum , HO HUM
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 05:26 PM • permalinkMy info on “bridgit Gread/emilyP is that she is not Mr Lefty/ anonymous Lefty but she and he are verymuch of a like mind in most issues . She claims to be a journalist !!!
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 05:35 PM • permalinkWill anonymous lefty remain anonymous?
You mean he still is ????
in his dreams !!!!
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 05:49 PM • permalinkCheers Paco. Thanks for your affirmation. It’s always nice to touch base with real humanists in this day and age of fashionable postmodern pap.
Funny how reason and experience sometimes conspire to coordinate viability…
FWIW: To my eternal gratitude both sides of my family, hailing from two ‘victim’ continents, had the fortitude and bare means with which to flee the helping resource-jacking boot to become resident individuals in the evil US of A.Anyway, back to fish, barrels...And legal firearms.
To (the poster currently known as?) Emily at 97:
Cognitive...Meet dissonance.
I’ve found that the deployment of the “amusing myself” tactic (Aka mental masturbation/monkey spanking) is [usually] an unintended declaration of defeat...A sloppy rearguard action employed by those who’ve finally mustered enough passive aggression to launch an ammunition-deprived retreat from the field. See also: Rout.
May I suggest an alternative, more healthy relationship - perhapse with reason?
...That way you can still play and maybe even limit inappropriate hair growth.
It ain’t easy being married to reason - she nags, she humbles, and she corrects all the time but Mmmmmmm...Delicious.
Bugger Ive been beaten to the fez!
Emily, here is a small hint for sub saharan africa.
a: Stop having 15 kids and settle for 2
b: Educate and nurture those 2
c: Stop electing corrupt and marxist governments, Plucking it from my arse Id confidently guess that 90% of the poorest countries are breeding like rabbits and “caringly marxist”A challenge for you, Show how Bob Mugabes “caring marxism” is working.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 01 01 at 07:34 PM • permalinkPith helmet? Well, thure, if you inthitht.
Rhinestone . . . encrusted . . . fez . . . [wipes brow with handkerchief . . . think, Paco, THINK . . . Ah!] Well, you see Monkeyfan, the help is going be wearing the fez’s (fezzes?), and, er, heh-heh, you wouldn’t want people stopping you on the way to the dance floor and ordering drinks, would you? No, dear fellow, what you want is a shako, loaded up with brass and gold braid.
Possible definition of a left-wing intellectual: Someone who knows a million words but can’t tell them apart.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 01 01 at 07:57 PM • permalinkThanks Ushie.
Finally some respect for lowly minions...And I didn’t even have to mention (...and this is for you Paco) that my particularly diabolical fez was deconstructed in a Cuban sweatshop from the finest asshairs as could be culled from dead Sub-Saharan marxists dictators.
Frollickingmole what’s wrong with multiple fez’s at the plumed ball?
</secret cabalistic handshake>"Just as well that Ph.D. is not in law or I’d think you were Clarence Thomas.”
Another liberal mad about one of the darkies leaving the liberal plantation, so she inflicts baseless slander on him. The liberals and leftists can’t stand the idea that a black person might think for himself and come to different conclusions than the ones they think he ought to have.
As for the poor Sub-Saharan Africans (does that appelation include the Boers I wonder?), they are poor and living in a continent reverting to the bush primarily because of the near universal kleptocratic socialism that was instituted there in the post-colonial period. Capitalism would come as a great relief and improvement to Africa. Sadly, that depends on a degree of security and existence of a rule of law, or at least order, that is not likely to happen any time soon. They are much more likely to be victims of the jihad instead.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 01 at 08:09 PM • permalinki’m coming very late to this, but what have sub-saharan africans got to do with kerry packer? and why would a sub-saharan african bother to think about despising anonymous lefty or kerry packer (making the highly unlikely assumption they’d ever heard of them) when there are much better things to do - like try to stay alive
#137: Lord, Monkeyfan, if you’ve got a fez like that you must be the highest-ranking Shriner in all the world. Wear it with pride, sir!
#142: Emily P. seemed to be suggesting that a poor person in the Sub-Saharan region would naturally hate any rich person, anywhere (I believe I even got a “Sheesh!” at the end of her comment, as if the phenomenon should have been evident to the meanest intelligence - i.e., mine). Whereas it seems to me that a starving farmer in, say, Zimbabwe would be directing his hatred far more justifiably at the vile Mugabe, with his maniacal property grabs that have removed some of the richest farmland in Africa from production.
Emily is presently posting here. Come and have another shot at her.
Posted by Ralph Malph on 2006 01 01 at 08:51 PM • permalinkAmen, Paul #136. But we are the ones who are then supposed to “tell them apart” for the alleged intellectual, who doesn’t care anyway.
So you nearly can’t win at all, because the hits just keep on a-coming, a veritable word-salad or diarrhea of the brain effluence, impossible to interpret.
Karl Marx believed that ideas were “phantoms” produced only by body movements. The voyeuristic masochist within me would have liked to actually have viewed Emily as its ideas were being produced. But the similarity of Emily’s ideas to bowel movements warns me off.
monkeyfan
Can I have the panda hair one with the Genuine plastic turkey wattle trimming?Lawyers are a neccessary evil. But funny how judges are “independent” and seem to create more ambiguity in the law. Youd think being ex-lawyers who make their money from ambiguity theyd appreciate any moves by parliments to simplify the law??
Bill of right anyone?
Soooeee piggy piggy, would be a bit more subtle.
/offPosted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 01 01 at 10:25 PM • permalinkThat is very sad indeed , and remember that Most of the firefighters involved are volunteers now that is real work for the community they offer their lives not just their money (take note Emily/ Bridgit)
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 11:00 PM • permalinkDBO—having seen the results of wild fire, I appreciate what those people are going through. My thoughts and prayers are with them. My condolences to the family of the fire fighter—truly, a dangerous and unappreciated job.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 01 at 11:03 PM • permalink#111: “Well surely thro’ the world’s wide extent, there has never appear’d so impudent a fellow as my school-fellow Dick, pass himself upon the town as a gentleman, drop into all the best company with an easy air, as if his natural element were in the sphere of quality; when the rogue had a kettle-drum to his father, who was hang’d for robbing a church, and has a pedlar to his mother, who carries her shop under her arm”. Sounds rather like my forebears.
#148: These victims of militant Islam certainly need our prayers. And a brigade of European troops wouldn’t hurt, either, since ours are otherwise occupied. Ah, but the Europeans wouldn’t want to provoke the followers of the Prophet, now, would they?
why should a denizen of Sub-Saharan Africa despise either bloke?
Well gee, let me think - because he’s unemployed and starving, and they’re not? Sheesh.
The Left still believes that someone like a Sub-Saharan African would “despise” someone because of their wealth. This shows the ignorance so many Leftists - especially our guest, Emily - have of most indigenous cultures in Africa or, indeed, of most tribal cultures anywhere. Far from despising Kerry, the Sub-Saharan would not only not despise him but would honor him on that very basis: his wealth. Kerry Packer would be seen as a worthy person who had managed to become rich and powerful through careful and shrewd dealings with other men. He’d be a hero. They value what they see as strength over weakness. It’s whiners they despise, not winners.
I agre with your comment EKV in the guise of “Bridgit Gread” Emily P claims to have spent a year in africa as a volenteer teacher but her understanding of the african mindset seems somewhat lacking none the less .
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 11:14 PM • permalinkRalph, yes I have links.
Go to Google News, type in “Kerry Packer” and weigh up eulogies against realistic and balanced biographies. Look at ‘coverage’ and not for ‘a site’.And yes, I know this will be too hard for you and you’ll keep chirruping about links. But let’s face it, some things are just going to be too hard for some people.
Oh, that is priceless - it’s Ralph’s responsibility to find Emily’s supporting evidence. And if he doesn’t, she sneers that he’s stupid and lazy. What a perfect example of Leftardary; “Hey, I’ve got some ideas - you go and do the work, stupid prole.”
Lazy, worthless, condescending oxygen thieves.
they’re suffering from marxomatosis?
ah yes Hooligan the RED blindness Ha Ha ha
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 11:27 PM • permalinkAh yes it was a couple of hours of fun, stirring up the cesspit and watching the nasties emerge from the woodwork. Your pet troll was there, of course, in one of his many alter-egos
this is emily/ bridgits spin on here efforts here in a comment over at my place is she deluding herself or what ?Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 01 at 11:41 PM • permalinkEmily seems to be an expert troll. She hijacked a thread, from talking about Packer to talking about her, out to 164.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 01 at 11:46 PM • permalinkGee these lefties are rather, umm, self-important aren’t they?
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 01 01 at 11:49 PM • permalinkWell hop to it McFailedGuiltripOption…
#145 - Paco I’m hardly a proper Lord of the Everlasting Dark like Wron n’ McEnroe. I errr...’Liberated’ that there fancy cap from the highest-ranking Shriner dude.
<slinks out of the plumed hat ball>#150 - Sure Frollickingmole. Among the very best perks of official minionhood in Master Rove’s nominally free Kleptocratic People’s Republic is that you can have any hat you can coerce from poor people.
Oh Snap!
Sorry...Scratch that.
I accidentally read that from that other Karl guy’s manifesto.You’ll of course have to earn that fancy fake but accurate turkey-trimmed Panda hair fez. Train hard on the Orbital Dissonators and you too can someday proudly
stealwear the black cap.I never really resented rich people until I read about Jeremy ‘anonymous lefty’.
The guy probably makes 2k plus a day in court and he’s a socialist -
What’s wrong with that picture folks?Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 01 02 at 12:43 AM • permalinkWell this thread took off! You go away for a morning and the party gets going.
At the risk of earning further wrath of Emily, I have read Paul Barrie’s book. My memory of it is that Packer was many faceted. He could be a bully and unpleasant just as he could be caring and generous.
One thing about him I am left with. Packer’s upbringing was beyond strict. His father was extremely remote and harsh. However Packer has not visited this upbringing upon his children. It seems he has maintained a good relationship with them. I think he deserves credit for breaking that mould.
I never really resented rich people until I read about Jeremy ‘anonymous lefty’.
The guy probably makes 2k plus a day in court and he’s a socialist -
What’s wrong with that picture folks?Yeah Dvo Vindice
it is like the rich would be socialists who “knew” about poverty when I was studying , if they got into trouble it was straight back to mummy for some more money . Mostly I put it down to an over active guilt chip ...Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 02 at 01:38 AM • permalinkDeo, re #168, don’t forget AL has to buy wigs and robes. Must be a horrendus expense to his clients.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 02 at 01:44 AM • permalinkUPDATE. Anonymous Lefty reveals his impoverished circumstances:
Tim, who of course has never tried starting out as a barrister (it involves saving up, quitting your job as a solicitor, undertaking an expensive course for three months - without pay - having to spend thousands setting up your business (buying wig and robes etc), and then, as you gradually build up that business, often waiting months before solicitors actually pay you. Yes, new barristers are truly rolling in it ...
It involves saving up! And buying a wig! Life’s tough.How much does a
bastoops, barrister command for an hour in court these days?Re 172 he may be a bit short at present but once established he will earn good money otherwise why would he give up the steady wage to join the bar ? who is he kidding? I bet he can go to Mumsy for a loan if he is a bit short ...
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 02 at 03:03 AM • permalinkFirst up I guess that settles the question of who old Mr Lefty is then.
Second as to the start up costs, yeh he is right and it can take a sodding long time to build up a viable practice but for christ’s sake cry me a river lefty. The reason behind our decision to be called to the bar is different for each of us and varies from the noble to the banal but given the benefits it ill behoves any of us to whine in public about how hard it is.
Three getting back on topic, it is always informative about how the left treat the wealthy. Generally the reaction is like Emily P, and the underlying reasoning on their part is I think like this - I am a good and clever person (Of course I am I care unlike those heartless righties). I am not much of a success. A person who does succeed like Packer must therefore be a complete bastard because I am a good person and have not succeeded. The fact that they maybe either lazy, talentless or so blinded by a quasi-marxist ideology so flawed that it makes the flat earth theory look plausible, never seems to occur to them. Oh and the fact that even the poor in Australia enjoy a standard of living undreamt of by 99% of humanity over time always seems to escape them.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 01 02 at 03:37 AM • permalinkStupid lefties like Emily and Mr anonLefty think that there is only just so much money to go around and people like KP grab more than their fair share whilst those that slog away are left with the crumbs.
What stupid lefties like Emily and Mr anonLefty fail to understand is that money and wealth are created by productive entrepeneurs working hard and willing to take risks not belting away at a blog all day and night.
Put your money where your mouth is stupid Emily and stupid Mr anonLefty and do something useful for a change instead of dancing on others graves.
hear hear for comments 176 177 it is all about envy with them and guilt that their lives are not hard enough for them to feel truely in sympathy with those they claim to advocate for .
Posted by NICE.PERSON on 2006 01 02 at 04:12 AM • permalinkRe 177 I think PJ O’Rourke put it best. I can’t remember the exact quote but it went along the lines of: the left believe that if the rich have too many slices of pizza the poor are left with the box it came in.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 01 02 at 04:26 AM • permalinkI checked out A.L.’s background on one of the links; he’s still practically a lawyer in the larval stage. I bet he cut corners on buying that wig, too; probably bought one made of Siamese cat hair ("M’Lud, I protest! The Prosecution is making a mockery of this trial through its irrelevant animadversions on the origins of my wig. And, no, it is NOT suffering from feline leukemia!").
An observation: similarity of behaviour of female leftist PETA poster (handle=?) at Yobbo’s and Emily P (assuming *not* the same person) when pushed in an argument, both resort to sexual terminology:
Emily P’s case:
Post#/Comment
18: ‘metaphorical blow-jobs about his character’
20: ‘erstwhile Boltwatch troll and serial online masturbator’
88: ‘web-based self-pleasuring’... she quit posting once the moderator spoke to her (ashamed of behaviour?)
PETA female similarly exhibited name calling by modifying posters’ handles, but didn’t blame technology ... reminiscent of AL blaming technology for deleted posts?
[Heaps on Yobbo’s PETA threads].
What’s the go, psychologists?
Gee, I wish we had “emily” here again to bat around. He was great fun.
I’ve decided Emily is a guy. This may require his returning to argue that supposition. He may also read this - as I believe he is lurking and reading all the time - and not fall into the trap. Either way, I know his ego has forced him to come back to see how much he has ‘roiled the righties’. He won’t be able to stay away. C’mon, Em, we know you’re there.
Ah yes, I’m back for one final encore, since you’ve all had so many kind things to say about me. It’s a shame that I left here on a polite note, thanking you all and extending good wishes, and yet in the meantime it’s been claimed by some among you that:
-- I can’t read or write English (the very first reply I received)
-- I’ve never done anything of note in my life
-- I’m a Marxist and/or a psuedo-Marxist
-- I’m a “stupid lefty” and/or a “leftard”
-- I suffer from cognitive dissonance
-- I suffer from a personality disorder, according to an alleged psychiatrist (I wonder what the AMA would make of your online consultations, Doc)
-- I’m “completely nasty”
-- I’m Anonymous Lefty (who himself has been professionally defamed and linked with a gay activist)
-- I’ve “plumbed new depths”
-- I’m ‘wankwoman’
-- I “know a million words but can’t tell them apart”
-- I think Clarence Thomas is a “darkie” who should never have left the plantation
-- I should be ashamed or embarrassed because a firefighter has lost his/her life (???)
-- I’m a “lazy, worthless, condescending oxygen thief”
-- I have danced on Kerry Packer’s grave
-- I’m actually a man (the cruellest of all!)None of these is true, yet they were offered here, mostly after I’d left. Given that my original post was about Tim Blair’s hatchet-job on another blogger that calls people “retards” (something you all seem to have glibly overlooked) and that I never celebrated Kerry’s death or called him an evil capitalist vampire, etc. etc., I find these reactions amazing. Some might be moved to paraphrase Andrew Bolt and say ‘oh how the Right loves to hate’. I hope and trust that’s not true. Once again, best wishes and a prosperous New Year to all, whether Left, Right or indifferent.
Leaving on a “polite note” doesn’t excuse being rude while you’re hear.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 01 03 at 11:54 AM • permalink16
why should a denizen of Sub-Saharan Africa despise either bloke?
Well gee, let me think - because he’s unemployed and starving, and they’re not? Sheesh.BRILLIANT! This encapsulates exactly why I feel fully justified in despising Brad Pitt. The little fukker! How dare he be in his mid-30s (right?), in buff physical condition, wealthy, famous, and dating Angelina Jolie! Damn him! Way I see it, the little bastard owes me reparations!
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 03 at 03:12 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Lawyers are blessed with many things. But self-awareness and reflection aren’t always among them.