Home > Australian politics, Media > Challenging viewpoints

Challenging viewpoints

As has been highlighted on the Blogwars thread, one of the more challenging aspects of debating on the internet can be the perspectives of the other people.  Their long held personal convictions can be a large impediment to any discussion simply because your thoughts don’t gel with their worldview, no matter how correct you may be.

I personally have come across this on many occasions and I’m sure everyone else has at some point.

So I wanted to try something different.  Instead of just blatting my thesis out there in toto giving ample leeway for cognitive dissonance to creep in, I want to try a more reductionist approach.

By breaking down your message into simple, verifiable points with a yes/no response I think you have a better change of breaking through.  How about this for a sample:

  1. During the last election campaign, did Julia Gillard commit to pursuing a price on carbon via an emissions trading scheme if she won Government?
  2. Did Julia Gillard win Government in her own right at the last election?
  3. Was Julia Gillard required to negotiate with Independents and the Greens to form Government?
  4. Does the process of negotiation require giving concessions to achieve your preferred outcome?
  5. Did Julia Gillard provide concessions to the Greens and Independents during this negotiation process?
  6. Has Julia Gillard undertaken to implement an emissions trading scheme, albeit with a fixed price period initially?

Do you think these statements are accurate enough to disallow any semantic wiggle room?  Can anyone disagree with any of the statements and keep a straight face while doing so?

Does anyone have any other examples?

 

UPDATE:  Extra points from Recalcitrant Rick in comments:

7.  Did Tony Abbott have an opportunity to form Government by negotiating with the Independents?

8.  Did those negotiations fail?

9.  Does this mean that in fact the current Labor Government is legitimate?

Advertisements
  1. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 4, 2011 at 10:28 AM

    I would add: Did Tony Abbott have an opportunity to form Government by negotiating with the Independents? Did those negotiations fail? Therefore do you not know concede that in fact the current Labor Government is in fact legitimate?

  2. November 4, 2011 at 11:10 AM

    Good points Rick…though I’m pretty sure the people who this is aimed at would dispute the last one loudly

  3. King Rat
    November 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    Sorry MS

    1) During the last election campaign, did Julia Gillard commit to pursuing a tax or a price on carbon via an emissions trading scheme if she won Government?

    Fixed that for you

    Next question is therefore

    2) After the election and on ABCs Q&A did the PM admit to “walking away” from a No Carbon Tax Commitment given prior to the election

    Answer is………………..YES

    • November 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM

      Rat, my questions and Rick’s cover a logical sequence of events.
      Yours goes from pre-election to post-election, and only covering the superficial.

      It’s my game, so if you want to play it’s my rules.
      Answer the questions as they are…if you can.

  4. reb
    November 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    “Does anyone have any other examples?”

    Certainly.

    If you set up a blog and declare that it is intended to be a support group for vulnerable gay men, and then publish comments, poems and jokes calling gay men “faggots,” could this not rightly be perceived as hypocritical and homophobic, thereby defeating the blog owner’s original intentions?

    • King Rat
      November 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM

      Yes !

      • AntonyG
        November 4, 2011 at 1:01 PM

        That’s if the story was true and not just part of an ongoing vendetta against another blogmaster.

      • Catching up
        November 4, 2011 at 1:17 PM

        Anthony, a vendetta that is becoming a little wearisome.

        A vendetta that has nothing to do with this post and this site.

    • November 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM

      Dead…horse…being…flogged.

      I’m fan of the RSPCA so if you want to persist in this vein of cruelty maybe you should take it elsewhere 🙂

      • reb
        November 4, 2011 at 1:17 PM

        Well you asked for an example, I gave you one … *sheesh*

    • November 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM

      Reb
      no blog can endure with a really narrow mandate, you need light and darkness, things serious and thing flippant to keep it fresh and engaging. Further blogs are organic things that take on a life of their own and if you worry too much about keeping to a particular mission statement then they die from a sort of suffocation.

  5. Ol' Sancty
    November 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM

    MS, your series of questions only works if you apply the same definition to the words “pursue” and “implement”. You continue to ignore that Gillard promised not just that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led, but further that she would build a national consensus for a price on CO2 not to be implemented before 2013.

    • November 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM

      Yep that’s what I thought…brain can’t cope with the facts so retreat into semantics.
      So I’m guessing you can’t answer the questions without brain implosion?

      And to explain once again we do not have a carbon tax…we have an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price period.
      How much are the Government taxing you Sancty? Can you give me a figure that they are taking out of your pay? That is the agreed definition of a tax is it not?

      • King Rat
        November 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM

        What did happen to that Focus Group she promised would first occur ?

  6. Catching up
    November 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    Yes to all questions.

    This is an legit government according to the Constitution.

  7. reb
    November 4, 2011 at 1:16 PM

    AntonyG :That’s if the story was true and not just part of an ongoing vendetta against another blogmaster.

    It is true. I have the email from Miglo to prove it.

    • Catching up
      November 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM

      Who cares?

    • Min
      November 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM

      I know exactly what Migs told you. But what precisely is your complaint, I suspect that it was because Migs dared to set up a blog at all. Who can forget the accusations that Migs had ‘stolen’ your contributors. And I’ve still got the emails for that one. When I asked for your precise complaint in June, because we at the Cafe had absolutely no idea about what you and ToM had been saying at The Political Sword this was your explanation: “Patricia then accused me of being so “disgruntled” over Julai’s refusal to support gay marriage that this was somehow clouding my political judgement of Labor in other policy areas.” That’s it, that’s the whole story..that Patricia accused you of being ‘disgruntled’ over at TPS. And this was in June..the month is now November….

      • reb
        November 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

        “I know exactly what Migs told you. But what precisely is your complaint”

        It’s not a complaint. It’s a simple observation. Migs set up the blog to be a support group for a certain marginalised minority, but you and people like Catching Up and Patricia think it’s all a great laugh to refer to this already marginalised minority as “faggots.”

        The fact that you choose to ignore this glaring hyporcrisy and blatant homophobia simply demonstrates how bitter and blinkered you’ve become… But then again as Catching Up so succinctly put it…

        Who cares….

      • Min
        November 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM

        http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/category/gay-issues/ And the author is..oh that’s right, it’s me. One is: http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/end-homophobia-the-rip-and-roll-campaign/ My opening comments were: “A recent safe sex campaign has revealed the depths to which homophobia continues to damage the health, safety and general wellbeing of many ordinary Australians. Straight or gay, we each share a fundamental right to live without prejudice.” But Reb just keep on with your anti-Cafe campaign…but at least be accurate about how the Cafe has addressed gay issues.

      • Catching up
        November 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM

        Reb, once again you are twisting what one says.

        I am only going to say this once, because this is not MS’s fight.

        Who cares that you want to keep the vendetta going.

        Not who cares about gays or any other issue we appear to assault your fragile sensibilities.

        I would like to add, I do not like to be told what to do or what to think.

        Sorry MS

      • reb
        November 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM

        How can I be “twisting what one says?”

        Patricia wrote a poem calling Tony Abbott “a faggot” and you all laughed and laughed..

        You’re pathetic. the lot of you.

      • November 4, 2011 at 4:46 PM

        Maybe you all should take it back to Blogwars….

      • Min
        November 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM

        No actually Patricia said about Tony Abbott that she thought that he would “prefer Mirabella”.

      • reb
        November 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM

        Min :
        No actually Patricia said about Tony Abbott that she thought that he would “prefer Mirabella”.

        That’s bullshit Min, she called him “a faggot” and you know it.

  8. Catching up
    November 4, 2011 at 1:26 PM

    MS, your post identifies the relevant information.

    The PM has not lied. Minority government are allowed under the constitution. This one is functioning efficiently.

    Mr. Abbott could not get the numbers to form a government.

    All MPs are equally elected to parliament. Green

    Those who do not believe this government is legit, have to ignore many inconvenience facts.

    • November 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM

      And that is really what I’m trying to highlight here.

      It’s a pretty simple experiment to see if they can agree with factual statements that contradict their worldview.
      We’ve seen samples of re-writing the questions to suit their agenda as well as retreating into semantics and nit picking in a derail attempt. On both occassions the commenter declined to actually play the game.

      It’s not that hard…toughen up and answer the questions, or tell me how the questions are not factually correct.

  9. Min
    November 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM

    Massive re: During the last election campaign, did Julia Gillard commit to pursuing a price on carbon via an emissions trading scheme if she won Government?

    Yes she did. The link is: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
    Quote: JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

  10. Tom of Melbourne
    November 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM

    Interesting that we return to some reasons for acrimony.

    Stuff like –
    • Taking material from a friend without the friend’s permission
    • Using email addresses for other than their intended purpose
    • Harvesting what would be known as “intellectual property” and “mailing lists” in the commercial world, without the permission of the owner

    …can have the effect of creating tension between blogs, and certainly CW has not really provided an explanation about those matters. So I suppose there will always be some residue tension.

  11. Min
    November 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM

    ToM, wrong again. There is no intellectual property involved in inviting friends to particate. All invitations and announcements regarding starting up a new blog came from private sources, then friends told other friends. There you go, you now have your explanation. The Cafe started as a circle of friends and has expanded from there.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 5:16 PM

      Yes Min, there are people who received emails at addresses that were only available to GT editors.

      I wonder whether you are able to understand that harvesting this information from GT to populate CW (with some early participants) can cause some tension.

      Then declining on successive occasions to own up can increase it.

      • Min
        November 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM

        Not at all ToM, many people had written to all of us, Joni, Migs, Nasking and myself. We were a circle of friends many many months before the Cafe started..you forget we all come from Tim Dunlop’s Blogocracy. How could we ‘harvest’ emails from GT when none of us were Admin on that site.

      • Tom of Melbourne
        November 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM

        That’s interestng Min.

        Are you suggesting that Miglo had no access to email addresses while he was editor at GT?

        I must say, that your advice is quite contrary to the explanation Miglo provided to me.

        So who do you suggest I believe?

  12. King Rat
    November 4, 2011 at 5:04 PM

    “All invitations and announcements regarding starting up a new blog came from private sources, then friends told other friends”

    THAT IS ABSOLUTE UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT……………….!

    MIGLO HIMSELF SENT AN UNSOLICITED EMAIL TO ONE OF MY BOGUS BLOGGING ADDRESSES.

    SO GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FOR A CHANGE AND STOP BULLSHITTING

  13. King Rat
    November 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    PS

    And of course he didn’t realise it was me when he sent it……………………LOL

  14. el gordo
    November 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM

    Interesting gathering but I have little more to add…except that the blogosphere is a wide open space with a lot of junk laying about.

    Do you report weather stories over here?

  15. Pip
    November 4, 2011 at 7:46 PM

    Reb should seek professional treatment for his malignant narcissism.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 7:58 PM

      Hi Pip, could you check with Min about exactly how Miglo came into possession of email addresses that did not belong to him? And whether harvesting this information has anything to do with the tense undercurrent between the blogs?

    • Min
      November 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM

      Here you go ToM, Migs had authoring rights at GT but was never Admin. Only Admin as everyone knows has access to email addresses. The email addresses came from myself in the majority and from Nasking. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a prolific writer.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM

      That’s interesting Min, and quite contrary to the exchanges I had with Miglo.

      Who should I believe?

    • Min
      November 4, 2011 at 8:52 PM

      Regarding the subject of email addresses in the year 2010..note that I’m being exceptionally patient with ToM. And what does it matter anyway. We Migs, Nasking and myself wrote to people saying that Migs had set up the blog Cafe Whispers, the Facebook group of course had been up and running since February ’10. If you want to double check, then go ask Nasking. Get back to me when you have Nas’s answer won’t you.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 9:11 PM

      No Min. I’ve now had several different stories.

      And it goes to the very core of the tension between I sense between CW and GT. It is a question of how people were notified about CW, despite not having participated at sites with those email addresses.

      Miglo & I used to exchange friendly emails, but I pressed him on this question. Miglo committed to me (at the time) that he would post a reconciliatory explanation. He stated this several times. But he broke his word.

      So that’s my version, there for you to rebut if you wish, but that’s why there is some tension between the blogs.

      It goes to basic honesty and commitments exchanged.

    • Min
      November 4, 2011 at 9:27 PM

      ToM, the core of the tension is that Reb and Joni had a falling out and Migs set up the Cafe. You are not doing good listening, I supplied a good number of the email addresses. Go back to the original posts at the Cafe..who are the contributors? Our friends that’s who. It’s all there on the record. Just because someone else is paranoid about having ‘stolen’ people doesn’t make it true. The truth is in the date, February ’10, months before Cafe Whispers the blog was set up. My last say, I am tired of trying to deal with people who are clearly paranoid and for some strange reason are in November ’11 still harping on about what was said or not said sometime during ’10 or was it ’09.

  16. Min
    November 4, 2011 at 8:56 PM

    And you el gordo, don’t go fibbing at GT that you were denied a voice. I offered you an authorship and put up a topic for you. Anytime you could have emailed me saying I would like to put up another topic. The Cafe is sort of unique in a way, we have 10 authors and do numerous guest posts. And this was Miglo’s vision, a place to encourage citizen journalists.

    • November 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM

      Reb and ToM,

      You’ll be pleased to know that you’ve caused a lot of damage to a number of people tonight. More damage than you’ll know. You’ll have to live with the consequences of that. I doubt it’ll bother you. It would most people, but not you two. ToM, you are a complete and utter liar. And here’s the email reb keeps talking about. You’ll note my appeal to him about your behaviour towards me and how it exposes you as the two-faced liar that you are. You are a very disturbed person.

      King Rat’s probably laughing his head off by now. Perhaps when he calms down he might like to ask reb what reb really thinks of him.

      I guess it’s all too late. The damage is done. Deal with it in your own way, but I doo hope you have a conscience.

      Goodbye.

      Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 9:13 PM
      To: Min; ‘joni’; ‘nasking’; ‘reb’
      Subject: I’ve had enough

      Hi all,

      Reb, I’m including you in this email because I feel you should know what I want to say. I know that I’m taking a bit of a risk including you, given your public outbursts against me, but what the heck, I’ll take it anyway.

      This evening I went into the Dashboard of Australian Blog Sites and noticed a couple of comments in the Spam folder from ToM. One of these distressed me. I’ve had enough of the constant harassment he has directed at me, so I will now do four things in response.

      Firstly, I will repeat the truth of the story about Café Whispers, which has already been told to ToM, but he refuses to believe it.

      CW was originally set up in Facebook (last February) for friends and relatives who belong to a minority group, namely gay people or those with a depression. It was a closed group, ie, only members could get access. At the same time I set up CW in WordPress, with the intention that the CW Facebook group have their own blog site in the future.

      Four months later joni put Blogocrats into recess, which was expected to last for a month. So that the Blogocrat bloggers could have a place to go, apart from Gutter Trash, I offered CW as an interim site. Email addresses were obtained from Blogocrats without approval – although I am 100% confident that approval would be given – and to protect people I said that the addresses came from GT. Everybody here, but you reb, knows that the addresses came from Blogocrats, but I told a lie when I said they were from GT. Two addresses had been obtained from GT, but I had been emailing those people on a social basis for some time. They do not blog at the Café, btw. Some other addresses were obtained from Facebook, where the bloggers are in my Friend’s group. It’s just a pity that Walrus was posting at Blogocrats under an alias, and he received the email about CW and started a war over it.

      I also made sure that the regulars at GT weren’t emailed about CW, so not to create any animosity. LOL that started its own problems because some people were upset that they weren’t invited to the Café.

      If CW was intended to be around for a long time I wouldn’t have invited people because they would have found their way to it eventually. But as it was only going to be a short-term place for bloggers it was necessary to alert them of its existence.

      Reb, you can dismiss the above if you want, but there are people here who can back my story up. If you think I’m lying, then you can call us all a liar.

      Secondly, I’m placing our first ban at the Café. You guess it; ToM. I’ve had enough of his attacks and I don’t need to put up with them any longer. Whilst he doesn’t have the guts to attack me at the Café, he attacks me at a couple of other sites and I’m so totally over it. If he were telling the truth about me then I’d wear it on the chin. But he continues with the lie and threatens to ruin CW and ABSites. I don’t need this. Why does he do it? People at GT stick up for him but they aren’t the ones who receive threats all the time.

      ToM and I used to email each other, which admittedly, I instigated. Then his threats started, not only via the blogs, but via emails to me. Again, why does he do it? What sick thrill does he get out of this?

      Thirdly, all new bloggers will be placed in moderation, as I’d expect that ToM would set up a gmail or Yahoo email account. For that reason, any new blogger with a gmail or Yahoo address will not be approved.

      Lastly, I will post a thread on the Café exposing ToM’s threats and explaining why he has been banned. However, I will not allow him any oxygen. He can kick and squeal elsewhere. This last piece of action might cause a bit of trouble, so I want to run it past you all first. Please keep in mind that I am at the edge of despair at what this man is doing to me. I’m an honest person whose intentions have always been good. He is trying to ruin me. He is trying to destroy me. He is trying to destroy my sites.

      • Tom of Melbourne
        November 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM

        That’s about the 4th version of your story Migo.

        But you’ve also said you got harvested names from several sites.

        You also committed at the time to post an explanation to help put this into the past. Right up until you decided to break that understanding we exchanged.

        So if you ask why there is some tension between us, I’m letting you know that it is because you broke your word.

        By the way, I’ve never threatened you. That is a deliberate lie. So either post the threat or put up with being called a liar.

  17. el gordo
    November 4, 2011 at 9:45 PM

    ‘And you el gordo, don’t go fibbing at GT that you were denied a voice…’

    The guest post was appreciated and it said basically that Minchin will help the incumbent who will later hand Minchin the presidency of the Liberal Party. This will surely happen.

    I never said I was denied a voice, only that I felt unwelcome.

  18. November 4, 2011 at 9:51 PM

    You’re a fucking lying asshole ToM. But do feel pleased that you’ve fucked up some lives. Now go root yourself.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 9:59 PM

      You may not like that you’ve provided a range of versions and commitments. But that’s the fact.

      So rather than throwing around the term, have a look in the mirror.

      • Min
        November 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM

        ToM, today’s comment from your boss Reb “Today it’s Mindless geriatric fucks that they are…..” Ho ho tres amusement. What do they call it..the cut and thrust of vigorous debate. I personally would label it being an abusive prick. Migs, might I second that comment.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM

      Summary – “I’ve only been bullshitting with my 3 previous versions, why won’t you believe my 4th?”

      And tell me why you broke the understanding we exchanged.

      • Min
        November 4, 2011 at 10:24 PM

        ToM, Reb knows this but I was a channel for Osho..karma is coming to collect you.

  19. Tom of Melbourne
    November 4, 2011 at 10:29 PM

    By the way, I think the nature of the “threat” you allege was along the lines of me saying that I’d post a comment that you had given a commitment to provide an explanation for how you set up CW with an email list.

    Foreshadowing that I was going to do this was hardly a threat.

  20. November 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM

    It’s too late Min. Do not concern yourself anymore. Over the last couple of days they have tried to wreck my career, and now my marriage and our friendship. They have also divulged information that would not have been done by a normal person.

    Now they’ll have blood on their hands.

  21. One Eyed Hitman(Beware of Immitations)
    November 4, 2011 at 11:14 PM

    You really are hillarious Miglo….

    So exactly how did you get one of my bogus blogging email addresses if you didn’t get it from somewhere else ?

    I currently have 12 of them going so I know if my email address is sold without my consent (its a thing left over from working in direct mail marketing many many years ago)

    It tends to catch out FUCKING LIARS………..

    I gotta admit you certainly have a skill at manipulation.

    But I’d really like to know how you got one of my sockpuppet emails

    Which reb can verify from a few weeks ago

    And by the way I’m sure reb thinks I’m a total Karmichael Hunt…………………but somehow we manage to co exist.

    Both of us obviously have one thing in common,

    We hate manipulators.

    • Min
      November 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM

      I Am The Walrus, aka One Eyed Hitman aka aka aka. Sorry, you’re wrong..yet again. Migs did not obtain one of your bogus email addresses. Here is the story. Cast your mind back to when Joni put his blog The Blogocrats into moderation mode, and of course you had no small hand in this giving Joni no alternative but to have to do this or close down his blog entirely. It would of course have been impossible for Joni to put comments through without assistance and so I offered to help him. Yes that’s right, I was Moderator/Admin for The Blogocrats. When Joni had to quit suddenly and Migs decided to start up his Cafe Whispers Facebook group as a blog, just until Joni came back we thought that the polite thing to do would be to advise all previous contributors of The Blogocrats who would have been effectively ‘homeless’. Little did I know that after Joni had banned I Am The Walrus from The Blogocrats that you had sneaked back in under an alias. BIG MISTAKE. Believe me, you would never have received the invitation to contribute if we had known who you were/are.

  22. One Eyed Hitman(Beware of Immitations)
    November 4, 2011 at 11:21 PM

    By the way Miglo

    As I told Massive yesterday

    You are free to blog without fear from me

    But dont fucking well push too hard. If you want a discussion come to GT or another. I wont discuss anything at the Cafe as you guys will (as ToM learnt this morning) edit the comments to suit yourselves.

    And do us all a favour

    Stop the fucking John Farnham “Last Time” posts

    Nasking tried that 50 times

    Its clearly just another manipulation by you to get sympathy from females

    Which you crave …………….

  23. One Eyed Hitman(Beware of Immitations)
    November 4, 2011 at 11:53 PM

    By the way

    One Eyed Hitman got his email AFTER you had been an author at GT

    Did that escape you ?

    Timelines Miglo…………..Timelines are very important

    LOL

    • Min
      November 5, 2011 at 8:47 AM

      Wrong Walrus, you never contributed to any of Miglo’s topics at Gutter Trash. As Migs had only Author Status he only had access to ‘out the back’ of his own topics. See previous, it was moi via The Blogocrats. How dare I invite you to participate in a new blog! Believe me I won’t make that same mistake twice.

      • King Rat
        November 5, 2011 at 10:41 AM

        Wrong Min

        But I ain’t bothering further.

        Everytime you say something one has to find a shovel to find their way thru the BS

      • Min
        November 5, 2011 at 11:09 AM

        Wrong in what way KR? That Migs only ever had author status? You do know the difference between being an Admin and an Author don’t you. All these years you have been harbouring resentment against Miglo..guess what, you picked the wrong person. It was me.

      • King Rat
        November 7, 2011 at 7:47 AM

        Yeah

        Whatever…………………………………..!

  24. Catching up
    November 5, 2011 at 12:09 AM

    So, TomM, Migs did not behave as you would wish, you have decided he has committed a hanging offence and the sentence is death. You are judge, jury and hangman.

    Do you ever forgive anyone that wrongs you.

    Are you perfect and have never made mistakes.

    Is it your right to destroy a site that many enjoy.

    Why visit if it does not please you.

    here

    What connection do you have with Reb. You appear to be joined at the hip

    How many bogus addresses do you have.

    There are many sites I do not like. Some, I believe are beyond the pale.

    At no time would I ever consider that I had the right to demand they change how the site is run. I have never thought I had the tight to tell them how to think.

    I just do not visit again.

    I assume that you are one that believes in free speech but I bet only for yourself.

    “Email addresses were obtained from Blogocrats without approval – although I am 100% confident that approval would be given – and to protect people I said that the addresses came from GT. ”

    TomM what more do you want.

    Don’t think you have handed out enough punishment and caused enough havoc.

    There are many that want the site to continue.

    Migs biggest mistake was treating you as a friend. He has paid a high price for that.

    TomM what do you do to people that do something really bad to you. Do you murder them.

    Is what you alleged has been done, enough to continue on with the hate you appear to be consumed with.

    This is not blog wars. This is a nasty attack on two people who have for years, have shared the same friends.

    There is no need for GT to be envious of Cafe. GT is capable of and does put up great posts of their own

    Both sites have there own visitors. Many visit both.

    WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.

    Even the Irish stopped their feud. Do you intend yours to last as long.

  25. Catching up
    November 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM

    Reb. ever though to seek out real homophobic sites and attack them, or is it only friends that interest you.

    I am sure if you look, you will find many.

  26. Tom of Melbourne
    November 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM

    CU, Miglo and I exchanged some emails about how he came into possession of some email addressees.

    There was some tension between blogs at that time, but it didn’t involve Miglo and I. We were on quite friendly terms.

    Miglo said he would write a thread explaining all the background and that this would help put the problems in the past.

    Some time later, I reminded Miglo of this commitment.

    Miglo basically told me to “f… off”.

    I said that I was considering posting my view of the background to all the tension. Miglo seems to regard this as a “threat”. What melodramatic crap, it wasn’t a threat, it was a response to being told to f…off and that he intended to break his commitments.

    Miglo has now provided about 3 or 4 different versions of all this.

    In any event harvesting email addresses without the permission of the owner is a little questionable.

    That’s were it ends with me, unless someone calls me a liar.

    • Min
      November 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM

      ToM, you’re not doing doing listening are you. It wasn’t Migs who obtained Walrus’s email address, it was me when Walrus sneaked into Joni’s The Blogocrats under an alias. I was moderator on Joni’s The Blogocrats AFTER Joni put the blog into moderation mode.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      November 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM

      Min, I’m really not interested in continuing this, but it appears you are.

      In summary, so as you understand my comment above.

      • Miglo has provided 3 or 4 versions of this.
      • He said (to me) he would post a conciliatory explanation.
      • When I reminded him, he told me to f… off.
      • I said, in that case I might post my own version.
      • He say’s this was “threatening him”. I think he is being melodramatic.

      I hope this clarifies why there is a sense of tension.

      • Min
        November 5, 2011 at 11:53 AM

        Oh good. Then of course you will no longer partake in any encouragement of denigration of/nor denigration of either Miglo or myself on this nor any other blog. A bit sad, when you choose to address issues and not play mind-games you have a lot to offer. Best wishes for your future endeavours, but believe me it will not be on any blog that either Migs or myself are a part of.

  27. Min
    November 5, 2011 at 10:41 AM

  28. reb
    November 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM

    Min :
    Oh good. Then of course you will no longer partake in any encouragement of denigration of/nor denigration of either Miglo or myself on this nor any other blog. A bit sad, when you choose to address issues and not play mind-games you have a lot to offer. Best wishes for your future endeavours, but believe me it will not be on any blog that either Migs or myself are a part of.

    I thought John Farnham had given up blogging.

  29. Min
    November 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM

  30. el gordo
    November 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM

    Massive…back to the original idea behind your essay, Matt Ridley is doing the rounds of contrarian blogs and he’s focusing on scientific heresy.

    ‘When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?’ Ridley has a list of issues and highlights the easy ones.

    Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.
    Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.
    Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.
    Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.
    Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.
    Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience.

    As stories go, anyone of these would make good copy, easily handled because of the inherent tension.

    I could add to the list with UFO, climate change etc.

  31. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 6, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    I have another question for the list, If Tony Abbott had managed to form government with the aid of the independents could he have negotiated with Andrew Wilkie without exploding!!! Oh, now I’m beginning to wish he had won! Seriously though, you people on here that are LNP supporters should try and HONESTLY!!! imagine the likely outcome?

  32. el gordo
    November 6, 2011 at 9:46 AM

    ‘…now I’m beginning to wish he had won!’

    Me too, there would be no carbon tax.

  33. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 6, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    No, no carbon tax, no nothing! From what would be a do-nothing government, wreckers, not builders!!! Even as the world continues to change, conservatives refuse to see the future, Pathetic! Real capitalists are already making money from the future, I bet Henry Ford was told there was no future in the automobile! You should stick to buggy’s young man! and as for that new fangled telephone? What’s wrong with the telegraph? Conservatives! all of em!
    I want to live in a dynamic resouceful country, not a country of fearful denialists! scared of change, scared of the future! Carpe Diem! or in Australian slang “go for it”

  34. el gordo
    November 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

    ‘I want to live in a dynamic resourceful country, not a country of fearful denialists! scared of change, scared of the future! Carpe Diem! or in Australian slang “go for it”

    The ‘fearful denialists’ are getting a bad reputation, because its being construed we are aligned with capitalists and right wing governments, but its not true.

    The Denialati are emphatic, all we are saying is CO2 does not cause global warming. If you can accept that…then everything else becomes clearer.

  35. armchair opinionator
    November 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    The ‘fearful denialists’ are getting a bad reputation, because its being construed we are aligned with capitalists and right wing governments, but its not true.

    You know it is el gordo, the whole denier thing is right wing, industry driven, ideology from the white, wealthy middle aged males who fear and resist any change to the staus quo. Don’t forget aligning yourselves with the creationists, the religious fundies as well. Pretty much everything that is right wing, capitalist and pantswetting really.

    The Denialati are emphatic, all we are saying is CO2 does not cause global warming. If you can accept that…then everything else becomes clearer.

    That’s what you are saying…now (emphatically). The latest in a long line of denial excuses, but it changes all the time doesn’t it? What about all the previous emphatic denier lies and myths that have been well and truly debunked, suddenly you deniers want us to forget about them? What a laugh!

    .And no, most reasonable, thinking people DO NOT accept that CO2 does not cause global warming, we are happy to be guided by the consensus of expert scientific opinion.

  36. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM

    My point is that denying science and not taken advantage of the opportunities that are now being presented is bad capitalism! I’m not against capitalism, I’m against lazy, unethical, dishonest capitalism! My criticism is of Conservatism and it’s inability to change and accept facts. The world is leaving you behind and you can’t even see it happening. By the way I’m a 62 year old self employed (poor) white male, so everyone be careful with your criticism! 🙂

  37. el gordo
    November 6, 2011 at 5:27 PM

    I expect nothing less from you Kitty.

    Rick, the Denialati are saying the scientific evidence at the moment shows that warming has stopped, even though CO2 continues to rise. Its a travesty.

    Also we have recalcitrant glaciers growing in the Rockies again, because the snow and ice has not melted over summer. This trend will continue as we enter a cooler phase.

  38. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM

    Dear el gordo, what scientific evidence? point me to the peer reviews, show me the consensus, a weather report is not a peer review! If you can find even as few as 10% of the worlds Climate Scientists to agree with you, I might start listening, But anyway, you feel free to keep on ignoring your Cardioligist, Dentist, Dietician, Oncologist, Motor Mechanic, et al, because after all, YOU KNOW BETTER!

  39. armchair opinionator
    November 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    By the way I’m a 62 year old self employed (poor) white male, so everyone be careful with your criticism!

    Power to you RR!

    el gordo??

    He suddenly seems to have a need to be elsewhere 🙂

  40. el gordo
    November 7, 2011 at 7:01 AM

    Rick, I’m no longer interested in arguing about peer review. It gets us nowhere as each side hold firm convictions and neither believes the other.

    Roy Spencer believes CO2 is warming the planet to a minor degree, but I disagree.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Also, just on the off chance that anyone else is reading this besides Kitty and Rick, note how the warminista turn things about…attacking the messenger.

    I am interested in what the science is telling us about the changing climate now, in real time, and not the utterances of those using models (crystal balls) to fathom the future.

    • November 7, 2011 at 9:01 AM

      Gordo, what do you think about the recent Berkely study run by a CC skeptic which proved that the points highlighted by them as flaws were actually not, such as urban heat sinks?

      Needless to say, the skeptic is no longer a skeptic…

  41. Recalcitrant Rick
    November 7, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    You just proved my point about Conservatives, Toxic Tony says it for all of you, no faith in the experts, Economists are crap, Scientists use chrystal balls! Climate change is crap! Arrogant! Ignorant! Pathetic!

  42. armchair opinionator
    November 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM

    I am interested in what the science is telling us about the changing climate now, in real time, and not the utterances of those using models (crystal balls) to fathom the future.

    Because that clearly hasn’t worked for scientific endeavour so far 😆

    Goodness, however has the world managed to progress?

  43. Kevin
    November 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM

    Massive

    I do find it very funny that the Liberial/National Coalition is unquestioned by media types or, indeed anyone, yet when Julia Gillard formed a “coalition” after the last election this Labor/Green/Indiependent grouping has NEVER been accepted as having a legitimate right to exist by many right wing types (and a few on the left as well).

    • November 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM

      I love how thay call it a “coalition” even though it is nothing of the sort. It is an agreement to pass votes of confidence in favour of the government on specified grounds.
      It’s not a lockstep tandem thing like the LNP brigade. If the Libs went out on their own they would be thoroughly massacred. The Nats would shrivel away to nothing…though possibly they would be able to represent the rural communities more effectively without having to toe the Liberal line.

  44. el gordo
    November 7, 2011 at 3:52 PM

    Rick, I’ve been a Labor voter all my life and voted for Julia at the last election because she said on national television, just before the vote, that she wouldn’t be introducing a tax on carbon dioxide.

    I don’t like Yabbott and I’m hopeful that Stephen Smith will be PM by new year and drop the tax.

    Massive the ‘recent Berkely study’ is still going the rounds and has all the characteristics of the usual argie bargie, but I haven’t had time to get involved.

    Perhaps you could enlighten me in a few sentences?

    Keeping in mind some of us have to work for a living.

    • November 7, 2011 at 4:40 PM

      I haven’t looked at it in any detail, but the upshot I have found is that a study was commissioned by skeptics to investigate all of the presumed data flaws in climate change measurements, one of these being urban heat sinks.
      The bloke in charge of it was an avowed skeptic who approached it as a true scientist. He ended up going over the data and finding that it confirmed the case for man made climate change, thoroughly debunking the skeptics talking points.

      A huge victory for the scientific method.

  45. jane
    November 8, 2011 at 12:21 AM

    el gordo, your vote has been vindicated. To paraphrase, Julia Gillard said on the eve of the election that she would not introduce a carbon tax, but was open to introducing a price on carbon emissions and an ETS. Which is just what has been delivered.

    As you very well know, there will not be an economy wide carbon tax under this government. If you want such a tax, vote 1 Liars Party, because it is their stated intention to impose one, which they intend to hand over to the big emitters as a present.

  46. Catching up
    November 9, 2011 at 6:02 AM

    We need to decide if a carbon tax and proceed on carbon emission are the same.

    I am of the belief, they are not the same. Experts in the tax field say they are not the same. Mr. Abbott said they were not the same. The PM said they were not the same.

    This is what was being discussed just before the election that led to the PM to say she would not have carbon tax.

    There was also comments that Mr.Abbott had made earlier when talking about Mr. Rudd’s scheme. Mr. Abbott had said believe a carbon tax was better.

    I am sure that el gordo, being one who took interest in the debate and was against any action being taken would have been aware of the distinction. I could be wrong.

    I know I was not happy to hear what the PM said until I heard her say she intended to addressed climate change with a price on carbon emission. What I was not happy about, was that gave the impression she would put it off until late in the term. That is one intention I am glad she thought better of, along with the abandoning citizen committee or whatever it was called.

    The alternative committee was a much better idea.

    I am sure that many hearing what the PM had to say, would have changed to voting for the Greens.

    At least in the independents seats, people had a third choice if the wanted climate change address as a priority of the new government.

    It was a part of the independents platform, along with the NBNCo.

    Listening to the Opposition, there case seems to be based wholly on the alleged “lie”

    The personal, bitter attack on the PM is pathetic. They should have at least pretended to be graceful losers. One can do this and still say, they will continue to fight the legislation. The attack should have stayed with the legislation not the person.

    The problem that the position has is that they do not have a viable alternative plan of action.

    The second problem that they have, is all bit a few sceptics have support Labor’s plan at onetime or other.

    WE DO NOT HAVE A CARBON TAX

  47. November 9, 2011 at 6:50 AM

    potato potato

  48. armchair opinionator
    November 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

    I’m pretty happy, I’ve always preferred a carbon tax to a CPRS. I was disappointed that a carbon tax was never even considered as an option by the Rudd government which went straight for the CPRS without debate.
    I think that a straight out tax stops the rorting of permits and huge subsidisation of industry.

    Carbon tax is obviously better option

    What is the difference between an emissions trading system, a carbon tax and “direct action”?

  49. el gordo
    November 11, 2011 at 6:48 PM

    ‘el gordo, your vote has been vindicated.’

    It’s the worst political decision I’ve made.

  50. el gordo
    November 11, 2011 at 6:53 PM

    ‘The second problem that they have, is all but a few sceptics have support Labor’s plan at onetime or other.’

    Don’t suppose you have a source for that?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: