Home > Australian politics, Media > The Goldfish Bowl in full flight

The Goldfish Bowl in full flight

March 2, 2012

There were some us who thought that once the media’s leadership was finally resolved after 12 months of beating up, that there would some sort of hysteria hiatus and a return to some semblance of actual journalism…how stupid do I feel right about now?

Not 5 minutes after the result of the spill was announced (the REAL result not Philip Coorey’s pretend result) It was straight on to “will Rudd challenge again”.  After this was wall-to-wall for a day or two, the next big “story” was who would replace Rudd and the cabinet re-shuffle.

Of course the underlying narrative was “jobs for the boys” and “punishment for those who dared side against her”…in the total absence of any information whatsoever.

And finally the shit cherry on top of the pile of crapulence that is the political media reporting this week was that Bob Carr was offered the FM position and vacant Senate seat but the PM was overridden.  Despite Carr explicitly stating that he was not contacted by the PM about the FM position, it keeps going around and around and around.

And as a final kicker, Tony Abbott took out first prize in the massive hypocrite stakes for saying that Julia Gillard was loose with the truth…this from the man who has admitted that you can’t trust anything he says.  Of course no-one mentioned this because that would require having a memory of more than 2 days, as well as a fully developed sense of ethics and morality.

Fortunately our media aren’t blessed with either of these things so we can expect even more of the unhinging, and now that the leaks will reduce they will just be making shit up out of whole cloth.

As we can see by the hysterical “we didn’t beat this up…look, it happened!” going on in the media they will say and do absolutely anything to keep their preferred narrative going and absolve themselves of any part in any reactions to it.  They are a blight on the Australian populace and do far more harm than good.

 

UPDATE:  As comments to this post seem to have degenerated to a whiny bitch-fest about one email address, I’m going to close them.

Advertisements
  1. mrumens
    March 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    What angers me mostly is the complete waste of time and taxpayers dollars on the two (repeat two) suspension of standing orders devoted to this theme. The opposition is treating parliament and the electorate with disdain and arrogance. It is true as Tony Abbott often says that the opposition is there to oppose but it’s also there to examine policy and improve it, Tony Abbott has no credibility challenging the credibility of Julia Gillard. During the 2004 election Tony Abbott gave an “:absolutely rock-solid, ironclad commitment” that the Medicare Safety Net levels wouldn’t change.After the election John Howard lifted the Safety Net levels. Tony Abbott said “When I made that statement in the election campaign I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this BUT OBVIOUSLY WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, GOVERNMENT DO CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS”:

    • Recalcitrant Rick
      March 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM

      Just another to the long list of Abbott lies! Don’t worry Tony, we’re keeping track, and your lies will all be well aired before the next election, which, by the way, is still 18 months away. Long enough for people to wake up to your flimsy rhetoric and economic stupidity and vandalism!

    • March 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

      Of course we never hear about this total disregard for Parliament. If we do get any shots of it at all it’s of Abbott in mid-diatribe and nothing of him getting completely pwned by everyone on the Government benches.

  2. King Rat
    March 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

    So Massive once again you manage to shoot yourself in the foot.

    Seems to happen so often these days I hear the cops might have to form a special strikeforce.

    Gillard said the entire story in the Oz was not true. Not one bit of it was true she said. She’s a liar. And not a good one either.

    How much more proof do you need FFS ?

    • March 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM

      It’s funny how you have this massive blind spot to Abbott’s continual lying on any subject he opens his mouth on, and yet seem to be dead keen on pulling up the PM for anything you deem to be a lie.
      I’m pretty sure she was objecting to their timeline of events…but then the media have never just made shit up before have they? They have such a spotless record…

      Not one person can know for sure exactly what happened apart from the people directly involved and they both denied it…unless of course the News Ltd hacks decided to hack someone’s phone…not that they’d ever do anything like that would they?

      Face it Rat, your continual attempts to defend the indefensible and paint this government somehow as “illegitimate” are getting even more pathetic and shrill. Your continual focus on the most trivial of issues as opposed to the functioning of Government are the signs of an extremely feeble mind unable and unwilling to let go of it’s prejudices.

  3. King Rat
    March 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    “Your continual focus on the most trivial of issues as opposed to the functioning of Government are the signs of an extremely feeble mind unable and unwilling to let go of it’s prejudices.”

    Oh yes but of course……………………….having a compulsive lying piece of shit as a PM is very trivial.

    You just make excuses for any deceitful practices by her.

    ROFLMAO pointing at you MS

    Like I said How much more proof do you need FFS ?

  4. March 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    Oh yes but of course……………………….having a compulsive lying piece of shit as a PM is very trivial.

    Like I said How much more proof do you need FFS ?

    How about you prove this “compulsive lying”? Give me examples.
    And if your first example is any iteration at all of “no carbon tax” then you will have conclusively proven yourself to be completely full of shit…this has been discredited so many times it’s not funny.

    A few points for your consideration:

    1. It’s not a lie if you aren’t intending to invalidate your comment i.e. if the situation changes and you aren’t able to deliver.
    2. It’s not a lie if people don’t understand what you have committed to.
    3. Even though he is extremely well versed in the subject, it’s not a lie just because Abbott says so.

    • jane
      March 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM

      Jeez Ratty, I didn’t know Liealot had managed to get himself the PM job. When did that happen? Nope, he’s still on the left of the Speaker.

      I hear he and Sloppy are looking for another catering firm to do their policy costings. Maybe you could steer them right; after all you’re always cooking up bullshit.

  5. King Rat
    March 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM

    Ask Andrew Wilkie

    ROFLMAO

    • March 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

      So it’s now a lie when you can’t get the numbers to get legislation through? Idiot…

  6. Tom of Melbourne
    March 5, 2012 at 8:39 PM

    ”So it’s now a lie when you can’t get the numbers to get legislation through?”

    Gillard didn’t make a “best endeavours” commitment. She didn’t qualify it. She said she would deliver the ALP in parliament. She didn’t deliver and didn’t even test her commitment in parliament.

    Gillard walked away from a written agreement. She broke her word.

    Without playing semantics, there are plenty that believe that represents a lie.

    • March 6, 2012 at 8:45 AM

      Nice work YomM…your impressive psychic ability to divine EXACTLY what people are thinking is as usual amazing. Tool.

      BTW she did deliver the ALP…it was the cross-benches that wouldn’t come to the party.
      It doesn’t matter if they “believe” it is a lie, by definition it is not.

  7. March 6, 2012 at 7:14 AM

    There are none so blind as those that will not see.

    • March 6, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      Hello Allan. I know you. 🙂

  8. March 6, 2012 at 8:18 AM

    “Idiot…”

    So that’s your response to a disagreeing contributor. Well if you want another Cafe then so be it. Responses like that will ensure your blog just withers and dies.

    Ciao

    • March 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

      I have decided to reduce my tolerance for the wilfully ignorant and blatantly trolling.
      The fact that you couldn’t produce a concrete example of lying seems to indicate that you are one of the above, hence my response. After all if the shoe fits…

      If you can’t take the heat then fuck off out of the kitchen. Go back to the troll-a-thon in the Gutter and have a sook to your mates…feel free to whinge about my blog as much as you like.

      • Duncan
        March 6, 2012 at 11:52 AM

        Be nice if the trollers could actually discuss the post, instead of one eyed barracking or sledgeing of Party A or B.

        If the media is so good, where was the reporter who Predicted Kevin rudd would resign as foreign minister, and who in the media predicted Carr would take over? Oh yeah, none of them, it was more “speculation”. Then they tell us they were right after the fact. Good old 20/20 hindshite.

        Might be time to bring out the banhammer on posters who LMFAOROTFLOMGWTFBBQ , then get butthurt when you apply some back.
        Oh wait, kingfail has left.

  9. March 6, 2012 at 2:53 PM

    Duncan :

    Be nice if the trollers could actually discuss the post, instead of one eyed barracking or sledgeing of Party A or B.

    If the media is so good, where was the reporter who Predicted Kevin rudd would resign as foreign minister, and who in the media predicted Carr would take over? Oh yeah, none of them, it was more “speculation”. Then they tell us they were right after the fact. Good old 20/20 hindshite.

    Might be time to bring out the banhammer on posters who LMFAOROTFLOMGWTFBBQ , then get butthurt when you apply some back.
    Oh wait, kingfail has left.

    It’s not worth the effort banning them Duncan. They’ll always go through troll withdrawal after finding no takers at the Gutter, or slamming the Cafe (who ignores them) and then come skipping back for another go.

    • March 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM

      Massive, bannings can be productive, so I’m led to believe. Apparently the Cafe has banned lots of people from what I’m hearing across the blogosphere – from people who don’t even try posting there lol. Funny that. You’d think I’d know who was and wasn’t banned. You can take it from me, there is only one blogger blocked from posting at the Cafe. Not giving away too many clues but there’s only three letters in his name. 😉

      • March 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM

        It’s funny how they hate your site SOOOO much that it seems to be all they talk about…even if it is in snarky asides.

        To me banning is the ultimate reward for a troll…a comprehensive “win” in their eyes. They managed to piss someone off so much that they banned them.

        Better to let them post and ignore/school them as the case may be. I notice Rat hasn’t risen to the challenge of proving Gillard lies. Tom has had a feeble go at it, but hasn’t really got traction.
        If she is this massive liar who continually utters mistruths surely it shouldn’t be that hard to find one?

      • March 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM

        Massive, that particular person was banned due to public demand. I was quite happy for his comments to be published because it showed the world how much of a troll he was. His comments certainly confirmed it. Nonetheless, he isn’t missed.

    • King Rat
      March 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM

      You are a deadest idiot MS.

      How about when asked on 4 Corners whether she was aware a victory speech over Rudd was being prepared she would not answer the question because she knew by doing so she would be shown up as being a liar when she had always claimed she had no intention of claiming the leadership until convinced on the night before the coup.

      She was asked the question again and again and refused to answer it.

      Just like she refuses to answer questions in relation to the Australia Day riots.

      Massive you rank amongst the biggest fucking fools of the internet. And as such you are very easily led just like the ALP wants its voters to be. You and the ALP are indeed a perfect fit.

      I honestly don’t know why you persist with your backwater blog that attracts almost no posters. All you are doing is trying to fill a gap in the market that does not exist. CW beat you to the groupthink stuff.

      I’ll give you some free advice (I’m not accustomed to that).If you are happy with groupthink you should stop wasting your time and just hang out at CW.

      • March 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

        I honestly don’t know why you persist with your backwater blog that attracts almost no posters. All you are doing is trying to fill a gap in the market that does not exist. CW beat you to the groupthink stuff.

        It got you posting didn’t it?
        So let me know where your blog is and I’ll pop over and have a look how it should be done…

        I’ll give you some free advice (I’m not accustomed to that).If you are happy with groupthink you should stop wasting your time and just hang out at CW.

        Free advice from Captain Rightard and his merry band of trolls…hmmm let me think. No I think I prefer a knitting needle being slowly inserted into my eye.

        Massive you rank amongst the biggest fucking fools of the internet. And as such you are very easily led just like the ALP wants its voters to be. You and the ALP are indeed a perfect fit.

        Seriously Rat, you are the biggest fucktard I have encountered in the blogosphere…and that’s a pretty big pool of people to choose from. You regurgitate ad nauseum the latest talking point/Abbott brain fart/media beat-up de jour completely uncritically and when presented with a modicum of facts that contradict your viewpoint will refuse to even contemplate that you might be wrong.
        I know conservatives struggle to cope with anything outside their cosy worldview, but sometimes you just take it to extremes.
        Your continual insistence despite any evidence provided that this Government is illegitimate/incompetant/(insert daily buzzword) makes me despair for the well being of our nation.

      • jane
        March 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM

        I honestly don’t know why you persist with your backwater blog that attracts almost no posters.

        So what are you doing away from the bright lights of the sewer, Ratty? You persist with infesting this backwater blog to such an extent that we group thinkers think you protest too much.

        As for your advice, you’d have to pay me to give it and even then I’d only accept it if it came in a sterile container.

  10. Tom of Melbourne
    March 6, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    Show me where Gillard delivered the ALP. She didn’t, many got cold feet and backed out.

    She found it easier to break her commitment than to force a vote and keep her word.

    • March 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM

      Show me where she didn’t deliver them…I can’t remember any time in this Government where a member has crossed the floor…this would be tantamount to political suicide, so your statement doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

      Why force a vote that won’t pass, leaving the door for the Mega Moron and his brigade of cackling vegetables to attempt yet another censure/SSO/try to get into Government without that pesky election process? Face it YomM, your side has zero clue in Parliament and are being shown up to be the rank amateurs they truly are. It will be a sad day for this country if they ever get in.

  11. King Rat
    March 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM

    “It got you posting didn’t it?”

    Well some walls are only good for their amusement from the stupid grafitti of their contributors and for pissing on from time to time.

    • Duncan
      March 7, 2012 at 8:26 PM

      …and that sums up all you’ve got to say. Your own words, just pissing on everything. Grow up, try using your brain. Sad sad troll.

  12. Tom of Melbourne
    March 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

    Even Gillard doesn’t argue that she met the commitment to Wilkie. But you’re such an expert, that you do.

    She either made a commitment that she wasn’t entitled to make, because she couldn’t deliver or she deliberately misled Wilkie by entering into an agreement that she knew she wouldn’t deliver.

    Either way, she’s finished as a credible leader.

    But no doubt, you’ll think of some way to blame the media – just as long as you don’t have to admit to any incompetence of duplicity by the government.
    ————————–
    Interesting to see some asylum seekers from bland barracking pop in.

    • March 7, 2012 at 10:07 PM

      This is a blog site I enjoy visiting. There are so few worth it these days.

    • March 8, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      Either way, she’s finished as a credible leader.

      It’s funny but you’ve been saying this ever since the election…I’m guessing you’ll keep saying it until something happens or the next election…whichever comes first.
      You’re not a journo are you?

  13. Tom of Melbourne
    March 8, 2012 at 8:51 PM

    True, I’ve been saying this ever since she lied broke her word about a few issues.

    But don’t you think it’s odd that you continue to argue that Gillard didn’t break her word to Wilkie, but even Gillard doesn’t bother with the high semantics?

    —————
    Elsewhere – inane/insipid as usual

  14. March 8, 2012 at 9:04 PM

    How odd you should say that, ToM. The last time I went to the gutter all you talked about was what was written at the Cafe. And the time before that. And the time before that too. And on and on. I must admit, talking about what is written at the Cafe does lend the gutter its only semblance of credibility. I’m glad you like it here though. Massive is a good bloke. I like what he writes. Cheers.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      March 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM

      Really? Your scone recipes are so very interesting – it certainly excites a huge amount of controversy.

      Have you procured any useful intellectual property from anyone else lately?

  15. March 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

    Boring. As usual. For a brief moment I was hoping you might come up with something intelligent. Love and hugs, Migs.

  16. Tom of Melbourne
    March 8, 2012 at 9:32 PM

    Insipid.

    But what is funny is that you threaten legal action over some vague slight from KR, but you know the points I make about your behaviour are factual.

    That’s hilarious.

  17. March 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM

    Was it KR? I didn’t know that.

    You obviously don’t remember threatening me with legal action in June 2010.

    Anyway, I don’t visit this nice place to engage in your bullshit. I’ve got a life outside the sewer. It’s a pity you haven’t.

    Goodnight darling. Xx

    • Tom of Melbourne
      March 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM

      That’s interesting.

      Did I say that in one of our email exchanges? I don’t think so.

      Really, I don’t think there is anything at all that I’d be embarrassed about in those exchanges, have you looked at your own comments?

      Perhaps don’t initiate exchanges it you find yourself getting all bothered by them.

  18. March 8, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    Message to Massive Spray. Refer to my email as to why I don’t usually post here: I bring the kooks out of the woodwork. 🙂

    I’d call them trolls but they’re a sensitive lot.

  19. jane
    March 8, 2012 at 11:32 PM

    Haven’t been here for a while, massive, but I see you’re battling the usual wankathon from the forgetful brigade.

    Blah! Blah! Blah!. Oh bugger, Liealot’s done it again! Quick! Accuse Gillard of lying! No, it’s really bad this time, accuse her of egregious lying! Don’t forget to mention the carbon price, er tax, so we can say she’s lying!

    God help us if they ask how many countries we’ve invaded based on her “lies” and how many people have died as a result.

    Now they were real lies. Real harmful toxic lies whose cost has been and continues to be counted in the tens of thousands of dead and injured and thousands of shattered lives. Not to mention the refugees.

    And who should be sitting on the opposition benches but one of the architects of these calamities and any number of yes men who facilitated the liars? And all because their lickspittle leader wanted to big note that intellectual and moral pygmy, George Dubya Bush.

    Oops, don’t mention the war!

    BTW, excellent post, Massive. No wonder the dingbats are burning up their keyboards. They probably think Anal Jones is a respected social commentator, Rupert Murdoch is a fit person to own a cat and Dolt is a principled investigative journalist. Bwwaaahahahahaha!!!

    • Tom of Melbourne
      March 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM

      That’s nice Jane.

      But really, MS called on a discussion about Gillard’s honesty.

      By the I notice that you’ve had the grace to say that you were wrong about Rudd’s leaking during the 2010 election campaign. Good for you.

      Others, including MS remain in denial about the factual media reporting about –
      • Leadership tensions between Rudd and Gillard.
      • Thomson having a case to answer.
      • That Gillard was about to renege on her written agreement with Wilkie.

      On all the big issues that barrackers have said were “baseless speculation etc, I’d say –
      Hate Media – 4, Barrackers – 0

      • jane
        March 13, 2012 at 11:38 PM

        ToM, even Liealot reckons it’s OK to change your mind when the situation demands it.

        Gillard couldn’t deliver to the letter on the commitment to Wilkie, but she’s found another way to tackle the pokies problem, which btw was part of the ALP election platform. It’s called lateral thinking, I believe.

        You should try it, it’s quite invigorating.

        As usual, you’re making unfounded assumptions wrt Craig Thomson.The HSU has not claimed that he has a case to answer and neither have the police.

        If you are in possession of irrefutable evidence that he has a case to answer, then you should do your duty and cough it up to the authorities.

        If, as I suspect, you just want him to have a case to answer, you’ll have to put your hand down and write 1000 lines-I must not make accusations about Craig Thomson without evidence of wrongdoing. And I’m not the Messiah, I’m just a very naughty boy.

  20. Neil of Sydney
    March 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    Why force a vote that won’t pass,”

    Because she can then say at least she tried.

    Gillard shook hands, verbally agreed and then signed a written document that she would do what Wilkie wanted if he allowed her to form govt.

    She did not take it to a vote because members of the ALP would have voted against it.

    She is one of the worst liars ever to be PM

    • jane
      March 13, 2012 at 10:50 PM

      Neil, before you type another word reflect on the person who is possibly the worst PM we’ve ever had and quite possibly will ever have, your hero the Rodent.

      When Julia Gillard has lied about people trying to kill their children, has lied about a country having WMDs which leads to its invasion and a war killing hundreds of thousands, has lied about knowledge of $300m worth of bribes to the country his lies saw us involved in a war, you’ll have good reason to call her a liar.

      Until then, you should exercise caution about calling people liars.

  21. Tom of Melbourne
    March 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    What a genuine coward you prove yourself to be Migo.

    You pop in here to provide a direct comment to me, then retreat to misrepresent comments.

    The behaviour is entirely true to form.

    • Min
      March 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

      Poor form is your usual modus operandi ToM. To use other blogs to denigrate others. For example using the Café as a forum to denigrate people from The Political Sword. Miglo a coward? Hardly. He has withstood the onslaughts, the ongoing threats against not just himself but against his friends. The vilification happening often on a daily basis. Motive? To have him close down his blog of course.

      • Tom of Melbourne
        March 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

        Min, on the current question, of the issues we’ve previously had exchanges on-
        • Rudd challenging Gillard
        • Craig Thomson having a case to answer
        • Gillard breaking her agreement with Wilkie
        • Rudd leaking to the press during the 2010 election

        …which do you think have been “speculation”, how accurate has your judgement been?
        —————————
        But Min, it’s really not much use blaming me for the fact that, between you and Miglo, you’ve provided about 4 versions of how you came to get all those email addresses to kick start your blog.

        Just tell me, should I believe the first version, which Miglo provided willingly, when we were on friendly terms, or one of the other versions, or one of your versions

        I’d also observe snide remarks made here and at TPS by Miglo. I haven’t bothered to reply at TPS, but Miglo invited it here, by commenting directly to me. He then skulked back to CW to misrepresent.

        As for “threats”, I’d appreciate it if you would elaborate. There have been none that I’m aware of, other than Miglo foreshadowing his legal option.

        But good for you! It’s great to see the loyalty!
        ———————
        Nice to hear from you!

      • Tom of Melbourne
        March 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

        Just another point Min, you really should knock off the spin that the debate about the (mis)appropriation of the emails has been going on nonstop.

        The fact is that we did all let bygones be bygones and participated are one another’s sites, but that changed when Miglo initiated the bans, for “trolling” about the very issues (eg above) that you seem to be wrong about.

        I’d also note that if I’d used the term “girls bitterness club” there would have been all sorts out outrage expressed. But the term was used recently in frustration, and went largely unnoticed by those that it was directed to.

  22. Catching up
    March 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    Neil, this PM also recognises the value of keeping ones powder dry. It is also prudent to live to fight another day.

    I am sick of hearing about lies, that in the scheme of things, even if lies, amount to little in the scheme of things.

    There is a difference between changing one’s mind and lying.

    All PM make promises, only to change their minds when circumstances change.

    Why should this PM, above all others stick to something that is not possible when other better, alternatives open up.

    I do not understand why so much energy is focus on the few faults you see in the PM.

    I do not see how you find it so easy to ignore the many successes the PM has had.

    Why is Mr. Abbott seen as a success when he has failed in everything he has set out to do.

    He is not in power.

    He has not stopped or amended any legalisation.

    He has not forced a new election.

    He has not increased his popularity in the polls.

    He has not had success in moving for the suspension of standing orders or censure motions.

    All he has done, is earn the record for moving his time wasting stunts each QT, for the most such actions since Federation.

  23. Min
    March 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

    ToM, why don’t you just stop it. Apologies Massive, but these people keep telling lie after lie after lie, therefore I feel responsible to tell people the truth (yet again). The email was one email and it’s approaching TWO YEARS AGO. We sent out invitations for people to participate when Joni suddenly had to take a break. Migs originally told you ToM, what was it, June 2010 that it was himself. We checked, it was me as Admin on another blog. Clearly the invitation would never have been sent if we had known that this person was a sock puppet. Full stop, end of story.

    • reb
      March 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

      No Min, you and Migs keep telling “lie after lie after lie.”

      So much so that your “so called” version of “the truth” is so far removed from reality, that a few of us are questioning your state of mind.

      It’s no secret that Migs “appropriated” a swag of email addresses that didn’t belong to him and wrote to them all asking them to join his new blog.

      The person that you call a “sock puppet” was nothing of the sort. He was just someone that was on the bulk mailing list who decided he didn’t want to be part of your shoddy, duplicitous underhand scheme.

      So for you to suggest that it was:

      1. You not Migs that “appropriated” the database of email addresses, and ;

      2. It was only one email address that was “appropriated”

      Is both factually incorrect and dishonest.

      So why don’t you just “stop it” – “End of story. Full stop.”

      The ongoing lies and bullshit and reinventing of what actually occurred is simply insulting my intelligence.

      • Min
        March 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM

        The “swag” consisted of B. Tolputt, Nasking, Aquanut, Bacchus, Jane and RN. Now tell me which of these were “stolen” from your site?

  24. Tom of Melbourne
    March 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM

    Min, as I’m banned at the site where this discussion should be held, I have to reply to you here.

    I refrained from commenting about the lies for quite some time, certainly I didn’t while I was off the CW banned list. I have commented this time because-
    • Miglo banned me,
    • used insulting language,
    • ignored a range of facts
    • neglected to honour a commitment we had exchange
    • somehow elevated himself to be an arbiter of media integrity, and
    • directly commented to me here, then misrepresented my comment at CW.

    `Now, you’re welcome to continue with your line that it was only “one” email address, and it didn’t really matter and it was quite some time ago.

    …and equally, I’m entitled to say, Miglo has provided different versions directly to me and they’re quite different to yours.

    I’m also entitled to say that my sense of ill will was inflamed by Miglo’s action in banning me. I’ve never been inclined to accept an unfair, arbitrary judgement and Miglo would have understood that.

    The evidence is that he’s invented stories when convenient, neglected commitments and behaved arbitrarily. Why would I ignore that?

  25. March 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    I’d appreciate it if you take your discussions about who did what to whom about emails somewhere else.

    I’d don’t really feel this is the place to rehash old soup…particularly when some have a REALLY hard time letting go of the (perceived?) slight. Time to duck down to Bunnings, pick up some timber and concrete, build a bridge and get over it.

    And TomM, when you decide to have a discussion without rehashing long discredited talking points I’m sure people will join in. When you keep pushing the same furphys over and over again no one takes you as anything more than a desperate troll/Liberal party staffer/wannabe astroturfer.

  26. Tom of Melbourne
    March 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM

    MS, what’s “discredited” about-
    • The fact that Rudd did leak during the 2010 election,
    • That he was agitating to challenge Gillard
    • That Thomson does have a case to answer
    • That Gillard did walk away from a written commitment to Wilkie???

    I realise that you find all that stuff (that you’ve called speculation), inconvenient to your political orientation, but it seems you were wrong about them!

    That’s what you and many others seem unable to get over. Perhaps pop down to Bunnings yourself!

    • March 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM

      Let’s go through the “discreditations”:

      1. Nothing. Now proven, was only speculation previously until people actually committed to talking about it on the record. I personally gave him the benefit of the doubt but as soon as people came out on the record it changed my mind completely.
      2. Still only speculation until someone committed to it. The media beat-up was a partner in the attempted spill…the constant reporting and speculation probably gave Rudd the impression he could sway caucus as being “the people’s choice”. If they hadn’t kept speculating about it for the past 18 months, keeping him as an option in the public and pollsters minds he wouldn’t have done it.
      3. Who knows…not our call as it is still under investigation by the relevant authorities. Until they finish their investigation everything is merely speculation.
      4. Nope…didn’t walk away. Made best efforts to get it across the line but Oakeshott and Windsor didn’t want a bar of it, hence it would fail to get passed. She did get some of the reforms in train so it wasn’t a complete wash…probably not exactly what Wilkie was after but politics is always the art of the possible. And for those who say “why didn’t she test it on the floor by putting it to a vote”, we already have a bunch of morons wasting Parliament’s time on a regular basis with inanities…why add something doomed to failure to the mix, giving the baboons an excuse to gibber on again.

      I know that reality is a scary place TomM, but basing your worldview on speculation and what people may or may not have THOUGHT at some point in time is pretty lame.

  27. reb
    March 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM

    BTW, give my love to the collective at “the girls’ bitterness club” 🙂

    • March 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM

      Will do.

      Enjoy your troll-fest…try to keep your feet out of the pools of vacuous dribble.

      • Min
        March 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM

        Massive, some people believe only what they want to believe because they have lived under a delusion for such a long time. The truth is that this was an invitation sent out to friends. In fact we received complaints from people that they hadn’t been told. Here’s an idea – you receive an invitation and you don’t want to participate, you ignore it. I hope that people realize that we are talking about ONE email, in June 2010.

  28. reb
    March 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM

    Here’s an idea – don’t steal email addresses that don’t belong to you.

  29. Tom of Melbourne
    March 13, 2012 at 12:56 PM

    MS, you agree that various reports are now proven.

    It is clear that much of the press reporting was coming from informed, reliable sources. I’d certainly argue that such reporting is in the public interest.

    When politicians are leaking to the press, do you suggest that this be suppressed by the media?

    By the way, FWA thinks Thomson has a case to answer.
    =========
    ‘Trollfest’ – odd, given that you now acknowledge that so much you dismiss as ‘speculation’ is factual.
    ===========
    However Min spins it, I’m inclined to accept the first version Miglo willing provided directly to me.

    I think the subsequent versions are lies, invented under a little scrutiny.

    There’s now a track record of this behaviour.

    • March 14, 2012 at 9:16 AM

      It is clear that much of the press reporting was coming from informed, reliable sources. I’d certainly argue that such reporting is in the public interest.

      If it was indeed in the public interest then they should have stood up and put themselves front and centre. If they aren’t prepared to back it, then it is just gossip.

      When politicians are leaking to the press, do you suggest that this be suppressed by the media?

      If they are not prepared to put their names or faces to it, then it is just gossip.

      By the way, FWA thinks Thomson has a case to answer.

      FWA have nothing to do with a police investigation…any involvement they would have would be political manipulation of the process…you know like that stuff George Brandis is so proud of.. The police investigation needs to run its course.

  30. reb
    March 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    “There’s now a track record of this behaviour”

    I know, it’s so difficult to keep up with “the latest version.”

    First it was Migs who stole the database of email addresses and readily admitted it.

    Then promised to explain his actions but then never bothered.

    Then got all shitty when the questionable nature of this conduct was brought to his attention.

    Then Min said that it wasn’t Migs who stole the database of email addresses, but it was actually her instead.

    Then Min said that it wasn’t multiple email addresses it was actually just “one email address” .

    Then asked everybody to just “stop it” and “forget about it.”

    Then called the people who questioned the constant lies, and distortions liars themselves…

    Bizarre behaviour indeed. But it’s the real thieves and liars who have been exposed.

  31. Min
    March 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM

    So reb, name them. Tell us all please which is the “database” which Migs and I stole. Go for it. Instead of making up bizarre accusations which relate to the time of June 2010, state specifically the names.

    Does or does not your accusation relate to June 2010? You will be exposed for the liar who you are.

    • Tom of Melbourne
      March 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM

      That’s interesting Min.

      If we believe you, that means Miglo’s very first inclination was to lie, without any reason or pressure. Why would he just come out and be untruthful?

      Alternatively, if Miglo’s version is truthful, that means you’re not being truthful.

      That’s the point, you’ve both provided entirely different versions.

      I accepted the one Miglo used when we were on friendly terms, because he had no reason to lie to me.

      Why is your current version the one to be believed?

      • Min
        March 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM

        Because ToM, it was ONE email. It was IATW sock puppeting after Joni had banned him. Migs had no way of knowing this. I was Joni’s moderator on The Blogocrats, and you can check with Joni if you like. What we are talking about is ONE email address, in the year June 2010. But all of this has been done over and over and over. ToM, honestly it’s ONE email address in the year 2010. I did apologise to IATW and said that if I had known that this was his sock puppet then clearly I would never have emailed him – in the year 2010 – and I’ll say it AGAIN – in the year 2012, I’m very very sorry that I emailed IATW

  32. Tom of Melbourne
    March 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM

    That’s not what Miglo said. So if you’re to be believed, that means Miglo lied for no reason, he wasn’t under pressure, and we had regularly exchanged friendly emails.

    Why would his first reaction be to tell such a lie?

  33. reb
    March 13, 2012 at 8:24 PM

    “if I had known that this was his sock puppet then clearly I would never have emailed him”

    You’re missing the point Min.

    The email addresses were not yours (or Migs) to take. Irrespective of whether it was one email address or one thousand.

    You stole them.

    Even you should have a rudimentary understand of intellectual property rights…

  34. Bacchus
    March 13, 2012 at 8:27 PM

    “I’d appreciate it if you take your discussions about who did what to whom about emails
    somewhere else.”

    Here’s an idea Massive – how about you make it clear that any further discussion by ANY party of this “issue” on your blog will be immediately deleted, no “beg your pardons”, no apologies, tough titties – “keep my blog outta this shit!”

    Worth considering for your own sanity, if nothing else?

    • March 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM

      IT’s very tempting…I’m getting a bit sick of the whiny-bitchness.

      I did see an unreserved apology further upstream, but there is no sign of it being accepted as yet.

      Seriously it sounds like I am in the middle of Wikileaks Oz-style…over one email address.

  35. reb
    March 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM

    Careful Bacchus, your bias is showing… 😉

  36. Tom of Melbourne
    March 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

    Credibility is undermined by honesty and reputation earned by behaviour.

    Lies and dishonesty undermine claims for some higher ethical calling, there is no substance to pontification about media and politicians with another orientation. Criticism of commentators becomes meaningless.

    This thread contains 2 examples, but possibly Gillard has a better opportunity to redeem her credibility.

  37. jane
    March 13, 2012 at 11:51 PM

    Min, I believe that I was one of the people who Migs emailed about CW. I was more than happy that he invited me to participate on the blog and I’m certainly not aggrieved that he contacted me. After all, it is my address.

  38. Tom of Melbourne
    March 14, 2012 at 6:31 AM

    Jane, Miglo said he knocked off (what amounts to) reb’s mailing list. This did not belong to him, it was intellectual property. He was able to do this because he occupied a position of trust (author).

    Jane that action, combined with banning, generates a lack of good will.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: