In the depth of Melbourne a new space/time anomaly has appeared in the Boltwatch bunker a post on the Andrew Bolt piece from the third of May about speed cameras and the previous leader of Victoria’s opposition , Rob Doyle , who has now retired from politics .
Bridgit Gread 05.27.06 – 4:56 am #
In Australia, we have this little thing called “it’s not defamation if it’s true.” Basically, if you can substantiate something, then you can say it. Where have you substantated that I am the champion of the stodgy argument? I’ll help you by showing how it’s done.Arguments (including accusations) have premise(s) and conclusions. The conclude something is true, the premise(s) have to be both true and support it. For example.P1: In Victoria, posting other people’s personal information (and pictures) online (without consent and in a harassing manner) is considered stalking.P2: Victoria recognises stalking if the victim is in Victoria at the time of the offence (even if the perp. is not).P3: Joe Bloggs posted personal info and pics about a Victorian while in Queensland, that was done in a harassing manner and without permission of the victim.Conclusion: Joe Bloggs is a stalker.Here’s another one…P1: Properly formed arguments have premise(s) that support the conclusionP2: Without any premise, Iain called Bruce the “champion of the stodgy argument.”Conclusion: Iain’s argument is stodgy. Here’s more even…P1: A hypocrite is either someone who applies standards to anothers they don’t to themselves, or accuses other of what they themselves are guilty.P2: Iain accused Bruce of being the “champion of the stodgy argument”P3: Iain’s accusation was stodgy (see above)Conclusion: Iain is a hypocrite.Or even more!P1: A hypocrite is either someone who applies standards to anothers they don’t to themselves, or accuses other of what they themselves are guilty.P2: Iain tells people that they should address his arguments and not make personal attacksP3: This post is nothing but a personal attack and doesn’t address a single thing Bruce said.Conclusion: Iain is a hypocrite.Iain, quit lying about me, stop misrepresenting my arguments and enough of the mis-use of other people’s pictures.While you are at it, grow up and quit targetting people who catch you out for your various foibles. Be a man, take ownership of your issues and get over them.
Bruce Homepage 05.27.06 – 5:18 am #
Bruce No one could accuse you of writing anything that is clear concise and to the point; you yourself have admitted that your prose is not your strongest suit. The definition of Stodgy is thick and dense and dull and it is no stretch to see that your prose easily meets that description. You have a great ability to say in a thousand words, that which would be clear in five hundred. If I had written something that was very much of its time and it was not published until events had overtaken it I would have pulled the piece. It does you no credit as it is now well out of date. which is why I gave it such a cursory treatment here . Forget the indignation You Published it at Boltwatch and I critiqued it here despite the fact that you suggest that I defame you by calling you a champion of stodgy Prose it is not a personal attack but a criticism of you self admitted failings as a writer of prose .
Iain Hall Homepage 05.27.06 – 6:14 am #
Iain Hall gives literary advice – now that takes the case.Bridgit Gread 05.27.06 – 6:39 am #
Using the definition of the term “stodgy” to explain away you assertion is dishonest, Iain. The terms “stodgy reasoning” or “stodgy logic” have more meaning that just dull/boring etc. They both imply the reasoning is somehow flawed.”Stodgy logic” is a term used by inductivists (to short circuit deductive logic) and “Stodgy reasoning” is the more coloquial version. Of course, you would be hard pressed to substantiate this term, because the notion of “stodgy logic/reasoning” is itself poorly supported by the philosophers who use the term.”Stodgy logic/reasoning” is simply an excuse to avoid complexity (usually employed to champion correlation/causation fallacies.)Still, you are required to substantiate the “stodgy reasoning” in it’s full meaning, not just a select dictionary meaning for “stodgy.”So substantiate Iain. Alternatively, if you don’t understand the term “stodgy reasoning”, you should be more cautious in using it.
Bridgit the phrase is “takes the cake ” Like a lot of your criticism of me you slip up on the details ,and end up with egg on your face. Especially in this instance when you decry my opinion of Bruce’s prose your error has a certain delicious irony.
Iain Hall Homepage 05.27.06 – 8:11 am #
Me making a typo is ironic? It might indeed be ironic if I, like you, patrolled the Internet giving people like Bruce lectures on the way they write. The simple fact is that Bruce’s writing is eminently clearer than your own. You haven’t even mastered the skill of putting commas in their correct position or understanding that pronouns don’t need to be capitalised within a sentence. So if there’s egg on my face, Iain, there’s a whole eight-person omelette on yours.
Bridgit Gread 05.27.06 – 8:25 am #
Bruce You may well haunt the dusty halls of academia and there the term may have the resonance that you claim but a blog is the realm of the common man and to the common man my definition is the one that fits the case in question and like your prose that I critique in the first instance you attempt to make your argument with sheer weight of words rather than a concise argument.
Iain Hall Homepage 05.27.06 – 8:32 am #
Typical crap argument Bridgit because no one on this fine earth will believe that when you wrote “case” instead of “cake” that it was a “typo’ take a small glance at your keyboard and you will see that the “s” and the “k” are some distance apart You got the phrase wrong pure and simple .
Iain Hall Homepage 05.27.06 – 9:42 am #
Could be that both Mr Lefty and Bruce have jobs that require their time and make regular and frequent blog entries difficult. Which is not a problem you seem to have, Iain.Take note Iain taking care of children is not a job that requires time. Gread’s kid (if it exists, she is an habitual liar) must do its own cooking and cleaning. Maybe it is in state care. That would be a good thing. I wouldnt want a child to be exposed to such a hate filled environment as Gread’s house must be.David Tan 05.27.06 – 10:49 am #
Iain you shouldnt be on Gread’s case about her spelling. You should be on her cake. LMAO.
David Tan 05.27.06 – 10:51 am #
Bruce stick to (insert whatever it is you do here) and avoid the law. You are no good at it.
David Tan 05.27.06 – 10:55 am #
Yes You are right David lefties will rave on about how men should be willing to do the role swap thing with the mothers of their children but when they come across some one like myself who is doing just that the first recourse is to deride me for “not having a Job” My children are growing up knowing that if they are in need, that it is their mother or I that will give them comfort, rather than some paid carer. Typically when Greado thought I was a woman it was “Good on you” stuff for taking care of my children….
Iain Hall Homepage 05.27.06 – 6:59 pm #
Wrong as usualy Iain.The Blogosphere has many discourses. Academic, popularist, angry teen etc etc.You criticised an author of a piece written (loosely) in the academic discourse with a phrase from academic discourse. The definition from academic discourse applies.If you don’t like the atmosphere of the discourse, you don’t have to enter it. Ignorance to it is of course no excuse.
Bruce Homepage 05.27.06 – 10:21 pm #
Well you stay home and look after your kids, isn’t that just peachy. I seem to recall a thread on Mark Latham, over at Tim Blair’s, where the wingnuts there took him to task for ‘making his wife work’ and not getting a job…. no doubt, based on the sentiments expressed here, you’d join with me in condemning the Blair lunatics for their appalling behaviour?Bruce stick to (insert whatever it is you do here) and avoid the law. You are no good at it.Good to see you’re following your own advice, Mr Pretend-Lawyer, and for the same reason too.
Bridgit Gread 05.27.06 – 10:26 pm #
You see Iain Greado is avoiding the issue by referring to “wingnuts” at another site (no names or links provided). It is an attempt to draw us away from her sexist and offensive comment.
David Tan 05.28.06 – 12:28 am #
Tan’s worried about sexism and offensiveness, isn’t that rich. I doubt that anyone apart from his sugar daddy Iain is going to buy it though. Tan should appologise immediately, LOL
Bridgit Gread 05.28.06 – 12:41 am #
For someone the master of thick, dense and dull, I’m sure getting quite a bit of attention.Updates for how many people are commenting on my post at Boltwatch. What’s next Iain, a journal of my bowel movements?And you still use the picture I have expressly forbidden you to use.Time to check up on those Queensland stalking laws me thinks. Your infatuation is beginning to annoy me.
Bruce Homepage 05.28.06 – 1:25 am #
I dunno why you people like Bridget and Bruce, who are apparently sensible, waste your time on this guy’s blogs. Its completely obvious that Iain is a clumsy trollish loser who just likes getting people angry for the sake of it. He tries to create an I’m-a-good-guy persona with his creepy, ‘friendly’ emails, but their whole purpose is just to keep you posting while he bags you in public. He’s completely weird. And David Tan brings nothing to the table except a fairly simple and not particularly clever line in personal attacks. Doubtless hes a sad, lonely little character in real life.You should all just leave these two to play with each other… and themselves… and post at a real blog.
Alex 05.28.06 – 1:56 am #
It is interesting that “Alex” complains of personal attacks and then says: “Doubtless hes a sad, lonely little character in real life”. More Orwellian “Doublespeak”.
David Tan 05.28.06 – 3:24 am #
Double-speak*Speaking of double-speak is that gread on my “cake” about a typo? LOL
David Tan 05.28.06 – 3:26 am #
You can say what you like, “David Tan”. These other posters here make the mistake of interpreting you as someone worth conversing with. I just see you as the nasty little grub you continually demonstrate yourself to be.
Alex 05.28.06 – 4:21 am #
Bruce, Mate , When you first gave me permission to use the photo it was permission that was with out qualification what so ever. Now I have said in reply to your rude and impolite demands, at my other blogs that if you ask me nicely I MAY consider doing as you wish and removing the photo. But you have to say “please” first .Now considering the point of debate here is Wether your prose is stodgy or not, it is entirely valid that I consider the sort of response you are getting to the piece in question . As I have done in my update. The definition of stodgy that is intended by me , the author ,is the one that counts , especially as I have qualified what I meant here in this comments thread . Remember Bruce this piece is a consideration of both the style and content of a post at Boltwatch. That is the remit of this blog. The fact that I find you piece lacking in both of these aspects is a criticism of your writing and it is not a personal attack. You have previously claimed that Andrew Bolt was defaming “global warming” advocates by disagreeing with their claims and now you try the same line with me because I say you are writing a crap piece with a dull style you say Iain, quit lying about me, stop misrepresenting my arguments What lies have I said about you Bruce? And how have I Misrepresented your arguments? If you can demonstrate anywhere in this piece that has me lying about you I will gladly recant and apologise
These other posters here make the mistake of interpreting you as someone worth conversing with.And yet you still do … by your definition you are more mistaken than them.Alex you bring nothing to the table except a fairly simple and not particularly clever line in personal attacks.
David Tan 05.28.06 – 5:47 am #
Looks like Little Man Tan is building up his own fan club.
Bridgit Gread 05.28.06 – 6:22 am #
Bruce, Mate ,When you first gave me permission to use the photo it was permission that was with out qualification what so ever. Now I have said in reply to your rude and impolite demands, at my other blogs that if you ask me nicely I MAY consider doing as you wish and removing the photo. But you have to say “please” first.
No other qualification also means that I never granted you honership or a period of tenure. Hence, usage is allowable determined by whatever whim passes my fancy.That’s assuming it was without qualification. As usual, this is just another one of you lies. My blog has always been under a Creative Commons license since day one which has a no derivatives clause. The only way this caluse would be made invalid is if I ceded it. I did not.I do not have to ask nicely. You shall remove it, and remove it for but one reason; I say so.I will put something else into plain words Iain. I say “stop stalking me” ergo you shall stop.
Under no stretch of a legal imagination is my critique of what you write on the Internet “stalking ” you. Do you have any idea how foolish your petulant attitude to my criticism makes you look? It certainly is not good mate. Frankly Bruce I find it most offensive that you falsely accuse me of a criminal act. You defame me by making such claims. Recant that claim immediately. It is both objectionable, and actionable in the courts. With regard to your original permission you certainly did not say to me that permission was on the basis of a “Creative Commons licence” you simply said that I had permission to use the image. . I have offered to remove the photo on terms that are most reasonable; you just have to ask me nicely and I will remove the image.
Iain Hall Homepage 05.28.06 – 5:40 pm #
Bruce I think this explanation of your actions is some what like your prose convoluted, self serving , or Just plain wrong. It is a very shonky response to criticism to, metaphorically speaking, raise ones hands in the air and dance crying oh my nasty critic is “obsessed” with me. There is just a small matter of the LIES YOU are saying about ME both explicit and implicit. Oh and I see your spell check is broken , highlighted words in the quote may need attention.
those who think all should be simple, usually are themselves! Oh, sometimes I crave for the simple life. As for the critics being simple (based on their attacks), I don’t really take it to heart. I like to afford people the opportunity to fail or learn or simply demonstrate their ability. This of course involves showing thm good faith, and that can wind up getting you abused.Eventually though, those who stuff up (by being malicious), wind up producing an abundance of evidence to give testimony to their malicious nature. It gives context to everything they do.It’s at that point you try to ignore them. Often they just go away either in defeat or in reflection, but occasionaly some attempt to violate you in some way. It’s amazing how often this involves stealing something from you; I’ve had underwear, keys and more recently a photo nicked.This is the part where you catch them (mild lawful antagonism does wonders to get them to incriminate themselves). Either confronted by the evidence and/or police, they slink back into their pit. Either to reflect (and perhaps get medicated), but often and sadly, to wrestle with themselves.In either case, you end up rid of them and you don’t have to blame yourself for sending them there. Despite what their friends and family may say (I’ve found some level of social isolation usually prevents this.)I’ve been down this road a few times with obsessives. But that’s life. It becomes routine and it’s not like I’ll never see it again in the class room. Better to just get used of it.So yeah, back to what you said. I think that generalising about people who call for simplicity is a bit of a stretch. If you are willing to be a bit patient, you can usually discern the smart simples from the sick simples.Once you know who’s who, the rest is just proceedure. Maybe the proceedure needs a name; filtering for the socially-ethically handicapped perhaps?I’ve had to use it on loved ones before. Have managed to force at least one to get the help they needed and they have come a long way into becoming rehabilitated.I’m not so merciful with strangers though. No such obligation. Quote from http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14676767&postID=114805673313721409&isPopup=trueIain Hall Homepage 05.28.06 – 6:20 pm #
Now Bruce I have moved on from considering your efforts at Boltwatch until you write more there so you can rest easy. Like wise I shall not be writing anything more about your own blog unless you mention me explicitly or by implication there. In which case I shall of course respond.And a final word about “the” picture.I teach my children that when you give some thing to some one else, without condition, it is the hight of bad manners to then throw a tantrum when you later change your mind. I tell them; Ask nicely and you may get the object of desire returned but stamp your foot and scream and you have no chance what so ever.
Iain Hall Homepage 05.28.06 – 8:50 pm #
I never “gave” it to you, I allowed you to use it. I’d teach your kids about honesty If I were you, they may in turn give you a lesson. As for stalking, I’ve been over the Criminal Code of 1899 sects 389A and 359B. Your behaviour towards me is clearly covered by this legistlation.There is no way on earth that my comment is actionable. I’ve simply demanded that you disengage from an unlawful behaviour, which is precicely what you have done.Part of the proceedure from dealing lawfully with stalkers is to warn them to desist before involving the police. I’ve warned you, you haven’t backed, now you will have to deal with the consequences.
Bruce Homepage 05.28.06 – 8:57 pm #
BruceWhat you “gave” me was permission to use that photograph and it is that which you are throwing this tantrum about . But you know what Bruce I have decided that having your scowling face apear in my blog is more offensive than conceding a point of principle so I have removed the photo but I will still link to it just in case anyone wants to look. Move on mate, you are making yourself look most foolish. As David Tan says stick to whatever it is that you do because your strong point is NOT the law. I have commented on what you write, nothing more and as I have decided to write about some thing else now just go away .
Iain, your demanding that I do something that I am not obliged to do (ask nicely) in order to get what I am entitled to (respect of my intellectual property rights) is a clear cut act of harrasment as per S359a and S359b. That you have stopped explicitly using my photo is an improvement.But what did you tell Janine about using that photo of your friend’s son? Removing the pic, but then just linking to it is not good enough, and by pointing this out, you admit it yourself. Iain, given the circumstances surrounding our disagreement, each explicit reference you make to me in one way or another can be determined to be an act of harrassment. If you had stuck to mere criticism of my arguments instead of the ad hominem, and hadn’t tried to use my photo as leverage for your ego, things would be different. But they aren’t. I then rightly interpret all explicit references to myself (rather than inferences) as a deliberate act of harassment. I don’t have to put up with harassment, hence I am now demanding that you remove all explicit references to myself, including the link to my picture. You’ve had your last warning for the photo, now this is your last warning for your behaviour in general.
Bruce Homepage 05.28.06 – 11:42 pm #
Interpret what you please Bruce I removed the photo as you demanded. The difference between this situation and that Of Janine is that she was making the grossest inferences about me but I am doing no such thing about you. I said to you before if you point out any particular thing that I have written that is a lie then I will recant and apologise for the error. But you seek to imply that the mere act of criticising what you write on the Internet is “harassment” That my friend is just not logical. Now go away I’m banning you from commenting here I have had enough of you trying to threaten me with legal action because you don’t like my critiques of your writing . You are a big boy now so kindly act like it.