Crikey have decided to monetize the various lefty groups that dine out on attacking Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt. First there was Boltwatch, then the Blair/Bolt Watch Project. Now there’s Crikey’s ‘Pure Poison‘. ‘Boltwatch’ originally belonged solely to Jeremy Sear (of Anonymous Lefty fame), but the Blair/Bolt Watch Project was a collaborative effort, recruiting the ‘talent’ (and I use that word advisedly) of the people at a blog called ‘grods corp‘ (the title refers, apparently, to underwear).
I’ve long thought the ‘grods corp’ crowd to be among the nastier bunches floating around the Oz interwebs, giving lefties some bullying nitwits for their very own. They’re also very, very unfunny. The unfunnyness seems to be catching, too, because when Jeremy blogged alone, he could be genuinely funny, in an understated Black Adderish way. Now he’s lost his sense of humour, and has joined the rest of them in mean-spirited point-scoring. Of course, they’ve cocked up on their very first day (as you do when trying to do this kind of thing), and Tim Blair is dining out at their expense.
They’ve now got a rather pathetic post up calling for help with point-scoring off lefties, but since they agree with many of the base suppositions that righties ‘call’ lefties on, I can’t see this working. Maybe they could attack likes of Robert Manne, David Marr and Phillip Adams from the left — a strategy the ABC employed against the Hawkeating government — but those kind of attacks tend to be earnest, not funny. Tim Blair — with some legitimacy — thinks he’s found a comedy gold mine, chiefly on the basis of marginal competence:
People, we have a new Margo. How I have longed for this day.
What does disappoint me particularly about this Crikey effort is that they’ve sucked in Tobias Ziegler, who is actually a good blogger. He’s never been funny, but then he’s never tried to be, either. His ‘home’ blog (called, with genuine whimsy, ‘Not a Hedgehog‘) is a place of reasoned argument and useful information, and I visit it regularly.
One entirely legitimate attack that the MSM directs at the blogosphere is based on the latter’s pettiness and nastiness. Of course, they use a broad brush, and all of us are tarred. Sure, Crikey doesn’t quite count as MSM, occupying an interesting liminal space, but I’m not sure that facilitating this aspect of the blogosphere is the way for any media organisation to go. It may be one day, but not with this group of writers.
UPDATE: Mark and Kim over at LP make some interesting observations.
102 Comments
Mehtinks you are being a little precious and way too concerned. I think it’s a gutsy effort from Crikey, if only for it’s comedy value. Of more interest and significance is that until now, The Professional Idiot and his Sydneyside Sidekick have cultivated bigotry, prejudice and ignorance through their News Ltd tabloid columns and in recent years now regale their adoring audience with several blogs a day to feed their righteous indignation. More obscene comment threads you will not find in Australia.
At least now Poison Pen provides something of a foil to these disreputable inflamatory characters. They are doing a service in dissecting their facile arguments and exposing their innate contradictions and hypocisy.. Good on ‘em!
And if The PI and his SSSK can do likewise and score some points from the Poison Pen so much the better. It can only improve the quality of debate and help keep them accountable.
Doing all that successfully, slim, requires you to be funny. These people are not funny. That is the problem.
Sadly they have taken the same sensibilities that makes Grods so despicable to the new venture and I predict that it will end up exactly the same sort of site. I expect that any conservative who goes there and tries to take on their arguments, as I did today, will get nothing but derision and scorn.
The irony of their title is something that I don’t think they thought of either.
So Poison Pen aren’t funny. The PI and his SSSK aren’t clever, wise or coherent. A perfect match! Oh The Irony!
What’s left wing about Poison Pen? Nothing as far as I can tell.
That’s probably a fair point, JP, which is why I mentioned the possibility of attacking ‘lefties’ from the left. That’s hard to do when you’re trying to be funny, though.
I will say that Jeremy is a genuine greenie, however. You may not consider that leftie, and there’s probably arguments both ways, but he’s a greenie in the double sense of true and faithful. Every now and again he strays outside of green politics and writes on something else — and well, too. I still maintain that the best defence post I’ve read outside of specialist sites like Air Power Australia was one of Jeremy’s. I remember highlighting it in Missing Link.
Doh! Pure Poison…must check names.
You hurt my feelings.
Grods, nastier than most floating around the blogosphere? I’ve never seen them go after someone personally and professionally the way Landeryou, Beck and their ilk have.
I could hardly be said to be impartial, though.
Oh dear, as I’ve said before, I don’t like this kind of point scoring game, no matter who plays it (Left or Right). Perhaps it’s strange for an ex-litigator like myself to feel that way; although an important aspect of litigation concerns listening to any valid points the other side make, as well as finding common ground and resolving disputes. Blog wars just ain’t my cup of tea.
Fer pity’s sake, Keri, you’re Jeremy’s girlfriend. I don’t know you from Adam but I recognise your photo. Don’t you read the sites he writes on? The names they call Bolt and Blair are not for the fainthearted. It’s unfunny bile and SL has quite properly noted.
And hey Scot. You’ve been busy posting at Blair’s site and now here – does Crikey know you’re pumping up his numbers and SL’s too instead of doing your new job and pumping up theirs? Don’t answer – just do your new bloggy job. I for one cannot wait to read an attack at PP against a lefty. It promises to be as savage as … well, MediaWatch attacking a lefty.
This is going to be very hilarious. Sear ought to get out of that crowd as there’s some serious dim bulbs he’s carousing with now.
It really does sound like the start of web-diary.
Slim of course is apologizing for them by suggesting SL is taking them too seriously.
No one is. It’s going to one of the funniest blogs on the web.
Just a reminder that we will SOON pettiness and nastiness. We’re not as moderated as LP or Club Troppo, but we ain’t Catallaxy either.
There are a mass of issues raised by this sort of blogging, and I’d like to see them teased out, and have offered this space to do it.
I’ve tried highlighting Jeremy’s earlier good writing and Tobias’ skill as a political commentator to indicate that I don’t think all things are equal here. Keri argues that Grods haven’t ‘gone after people’ in the same way, but I’m not sure that holds. One of the stocks-in-trade of both sides in this BlogWar ™ is the attribution of commenters’ behaviour to that of the blog host. It’s something I’ve never liked, but I think sometimes it does have some merit.
I have no doubt that — in the days when they really feuded — that a Landeryou commenter/reader hacked Jeremy’s blog. I also have no doubt that a Grods commenter/reader hacked Iain Hall’s blog. The coarseness began to spread, too. Jeremy in his earlier blogging days was satirical but unfailingly polite. Yet he finished up going after — of all people — a parking attendant. By small steps like this is public discourse coarsened.
I’m not telling people not to engage in this kind of speech, but rather to suggest that speech has consequences, often — as in economics — unintended consequences. It is well to bear that in mind.
If you’re gonna take head on hard-nosed, skilled and well-resourced professional opinionators like Bolt and Blair, you shouldn’t boastfully announce and line up your team in advance. And is it a dream time? Sadly No.
B1 and B2’s gonna make breakfast out of Jeremy and Grodscorp because the latter will always be reactive amateurs in this game. And in the blogosphere you get to dictate your own benchmarks for success to your followers anyway. It’s anarchy out there I tell you!
Crikey should either go asymmetrical or why even fucking bother. Unless you’re just looking for a stoush royale. The real battle for the hearts and minds that are gonna drive the next few decades is already being won well beyond bitchy and uberpartisan blogs who’d never attract real players in their threads. It’s all so 2004.
Skeptic Lawyer, Beck, Blair go in hard the very first day….are you all nervous or something? Talk about massing the troops.
Obviously Crikey thinks there’s an audience for the blog or they wouldn’t bother. It will also presumably provide occasional content for Crikey’s front page.
And nice work there trying to wedge out Tobias with the ‘Oh, he’s a good guy, he’ll just get dragged down associating with them’ spiel. Don’t think it’s gonna work.
What gets me about this is that the bloggers at Poison Pen presumably think that attacking Bolt, Blair etc is a good use of their time.
I loathe Bolt and Blair, not so much for their overt political stances but for the hatred and scorn they allow their commenters to express on their sites. (I think that blogs have a fairly large level of responsibility for the culture created and sustained by their commenters).
Poison Pen etc are just a mirror image of that, which helps political discourse not one bit. If you really wanted to reduce the influence of the Blairs and Bolts of the world you’d start off by civilly arguing and discussing issues with right-wing blogs that don’t get down in the dirt – I’d suggest Opinion Dominion for a start, which, unlike most professedly right-wing blogs agrees with the idea that global warming is caused by humans. Zoe Brain’s blog is another thoughtful right-wing Australian blog which is far superior to the Bolts and Blairs of the world.
Ths would lead to a shift of right-wing discourse away from the blogs which use outrage as a tactic and towards ones where independent thinking is encouraged.
Of course, if all you’re looking for is a fight, after which you can feel all self-righteous, the Poison Pen method is perfect.
And if anyone can tell me how we can get rid of the idea that Philip Adams is in any way left-wing, please do let me know. He’s a comfortable, vaguely social-democratic pundit who has a very conservative effect on politics – the logical conclusion of his politics is that all we need to do is elect nice people and things wil work out just great. My version of left-wing politics is about people taking power for themselves, rather than relying on Radio National to tell them what would make the world a better place.
Crikey rounded them up to boost page views, it’s as simple as that. It’s a tactic as old as publishing.
And not a sheila among them. Sob.
I dipped my toes a couple of times in Jeremy’s blog and round the same time stumbled into GrodsCorp, though backed out real quick from that weirdo, abusive quagmire. I eventually banned myself from visiting AL because it made me feel a little ill.
Have to agree with John Passant. “The Left” may be a broad church but I fail to see what is left about this crew at all or at least standing for anything I admire about and support in left politics.
And yes, Jeremy’s vilification of a parking attendant who fined him was unbelievably dire as was his stubborn self-defence in the face of legitimate and overwhelming criticism of his post.
SL you have accurately skewered their individual and collective second worst (and most unforgivable) failing: complete and utter boy’s own humourlessness. And, I would add, their depressing joylessness or any even incidental semblance of tenderness.
As I see it they either have to go for humour or serious and scholarly discourse; instead it is just more of the same stuff that they have been serving up for ages. It may play well to their own small gallery but ultimately it will fall into a heap.
But I wonder are they actually paying to have that blog hosted by Crikey? If they are that would be the most amusing part of the whole thing.
While I generally support Crikey’s co-opting of many of the Australian blogosphere’s more interesting writers, I am unconvinced by this latest move.
The problem with Pure Poison is that it will tar Crikey as a marginal left-of-centre publication precisely at the time (thanks to the navel-gazing tribulations of Fairfax and News Ltd), it has a good chance of occupying the central square of public opinion.
Pure Poison may still work, but it needs to make serious good on its promise to attack cant from whatever direction it emerges.
If you guys are so disgusted by personal attacks on the internets then why do you have a person in your blogroll who routinely writes this sort of stuff and lets these sort of comments stand?
I’d hate you to open yourselves up to allegations of hypocrisy and stuff.
I’ll leave LE to answer directly concerning JF Beck, as she’s known him for considerably longer than me (and he’s in her blogroll, as you may not have noticed), but I will make these two points:
1. J.F and I have argued, publicly and with considerable irritation, over BBP2006. I think he was completely wrong. I haven’t changed my mind.
2. Despite publicly disagreeing over many issues, JF was still happy to write to me to draw attention to LE’s original blog. At that stage I hadn’t read anything by her, and didn’t know she existed. He can therefore quite legitimately be credited for us meeting.
3. It has occurred to me that if you want ‘Pure Poison’ to work as a bipartisan attack on cant (as Derek suggests), then you really need to recruit J.F. Beck. He does to lefties what you do to righties. It wouldn’t be a blog I’d visit, but you also wouldn’t need to put out appeals for assistance with going after people on your own side.
I have set out my own personal guidelines in terms of blogging etiquette:
When various commentators trumpeted about Jeremy’s split with his then-wife, and then found his dating profile, I commented on their sites to say that I thought this was totally out of line.
Nonetheless, I do link to some bloggers who have been involved in flamewars, and do not follow my guidelines. Just because you link to someone in your blog roll, or link to one post favourably, it doesn’t mean you agree with everything they do or say (as I was saying just the other day).
Although we disagree on many things, I think that J.F. has some interesting posts at times, and he has inspired me to write posts.
I would say exactly the same thing about Jeremy, by the way – sometimes I think he has fallen into the trap of attacking people on a personal basis when it is inappropriate, but I still read his blog regularly, and sometimes his posts have also inspired me. I don’t shut my mind off just because I don’t agree with everything he says.
That’s probably what I like least about this kind of blog war thing – it shows a closed-minded determination to reject everything the “other side” says, just on principle.
“He does to lefties what you do to righties”
I’ve never seen any of the Grods lot go after the partners of people they disagree with. Which Beck has been more than happy to do to me, and to let stand in his comments.
Nor have I seen them let a patent lie stand about someones profession, which Blair was more than happy to do. As was Landeryou, as recently as yesterday.
WB – And I admitted straight up that I could probably not be considered un-biased by others. I’ll have it noted, however, that there have been plenty of times I’ve publicly taken on Jeremy’s position on something when I’ve disagreed. Same goes with the Grods lot.
I’m no-one’s yes man/woman, and I’m more than entitled to my opinion.
LE – You may have missed it, but Scott actually wrote a post this week agreeing with something Bolt wrote.
Keri, I find it distasteful when posts attack people’s partners or family. I would never do that. Also, I think one has to be sensitive if someone has been bereaved or has had a tragedy occur (whether it be divorce, bushfire or whatever). That’s just me.
I don’t tend to read Grods, having copped a few serves from them in the past about my blogroll and links. I prefer it when people judge me on the substance of what I write.
Keri
You are being wilfully oblivious to the far more despicable things done by your pals than anything written by J. F Beck.
We’ll have the debate about your past acts if you want to, Iain. Just let us know when you want to kick it off.
LE – I agree in regards to the bereavement.
Iain – Point out one post on Grods that worse that the comments in Beck’s blog about me recently. You’ll struggle, trust me.
*Yawn!* *Stretch!*
OK. Day 2.
I checked. Still true today.
“But I wonder are they actually paying to have that blog hosted by Crikey? If they are that would be the most amusing part of the whole thing.”
Oh, Iain, you are precious.
“you really need to recruit J.F. Beck. He does to lefties what you do to righties.”
Really. Have you seriously read any of his campaigns about me? His truly disturbing digging into my personal life? Over many bloody years?
Beck is a shameless liar, smearer, and stalker. The only person I can think of on the blogosphere even close to him is Andrew Landeryou. Even Blair won’t sink as low as Beck – although that’s just because he lets Beck do it for him, and then links to it.
Incidentally, Keri, I regarded those comments about you on JF’s blog as appalling, and would never allow those kinds of comments on my own blog. Personally, I wish you and Jeremy every happiness.
Precious or Not Jeremy are you lot paying for the pleasure of blogging there?
“Incidentally, Keri, I regarded those comments about you on JF’s blog as appalling, and would never allow those kinds of comments on my own blog”
And of course, neither would we.
Yet Helen’s happy to try to draw a parallel between Beck’s filth and us taking on the professional efforts of Blair and Bolt.
“Precious or Not Jeremy are you lot paying for the pleasure of blogging there?”
Oh, Iain, that would be telling! See if you can figure it out…
Why the childish secrecy Jeremy?
Are you ashamed to tell the truth?
I can’t see how it’s any of your business, Iain.
LE – Thank you.
I don’t want to buy into any of this sanctimonious ‘this blogger is morally superior to that blogger’ argument, which presupposes moral superiority on one’s own part while condescending to the bloggers one is criticising.
But I’ll second Iain’s question Jeremy. Are you being paid for this? Because I think it is relevant.
Firstly, that takes you out of the old ‘amateur blogger’ status and puts you instead as a ‘professional blogger’, and your motivations to blog and discuss various issues change significantly. Secondly, a monetary input gives you a bit more freedom to perform research, chase up facts, etc, or possibly *invent* facts. And thirdly, I would think it rather admirable if you guys are being recognised for your blogging in this way, and I think it does credit to both you and blogging.
My one substantive criticism of the blog so far is that it is clearly biased to the political left; it says so there in the summary in the top, that you are interested in taking Blair, Bolt, Ackerman and Albrechtsen to task. Hopefully you’ll change this in the days and weeks to come.
He does to lefties what you do to righties.
As in:
Truly disturbing digging into my personal life?… shameless liar, smearer, and stalker.
Well yeah? So? That’s their job.
I’ve said elsewhere why it’s a good thing and now I’ll say why it’s a bad thing. The idea behind say Media Watch is a good one provided those contributing are willing to be transideologically co-operative and non-partisan when doing that job.
But the culture says otherwise: You do everything to help your friends like you do anything to kick your enemies, as a dumb old Irish movie gangster says.
His smarter, younger council replies: Wrong Leo. You do things for a reason.
The reason behind this sort of thing is simply to play n’ah n’ah n’ah. If you’re going to hassle Bolt you should also hassle Adams (into an impending grave preferably). If you don’t it’s not a mode of promoting high quality journalism and commentary but simply of adding momentum to the slide.
Blair and Bolt can make good points. But, particularly when it comes to the environment, they can be blatantly dishonest as well. And I dislike the thuggish mob type commentary you can attract on their blogs. (You can get similar shit from left-wingers too btw). Still I don’t see why we should single them out and leave Michael Moore alone.
Tim
My question to Jeremy was not is he being paid to write the blog but is he and his fellow authors paying Crikey to host it. Now as Jeremy is being very coy about this I have emailed Crikey to find out what the terms are for having a blog there.
Apologies Iain, I misread your question.
No worries Tim
I will of course post the answer when I have it..
Jeremy writes:
“Really. Have you seriously read any of his campaigns about me? His truly disturbing digging into my personal life? Over many bloody years?
“Beck is a shameless liar, smearer, and stalker.”
Pretty loose talk coming from a lawyer. Back up your allegations, please.
“I have emailed Crikey to find out what the terms are for having a blog there.”
Did you, now. And what makes you think that our arrangement with Crikey is any of your business, Iain? Or that they’d divulge the details to you?
Tim – I think the first paragraph of this post at Grods makes it pretty obvious.
Nothin’ wrong with adverts on a site to pay the bills.
Oh, feel free to sue me, Becky.
Remembering that then your own name and details would be out there, attached to your words… and I doubt anyone would be willing to put their name to your bile. Let alone someone as gutless as you.
No – sniping at people’s personal lives from behind the coward’s shield of anonymity is all you can manage.
The real issue as regards you is Dale, and Blair, who have pretensions to being decent human beings, actually linking to your poison, just because it attacks someone they don’t personally like.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Jeremy
I don’t care one bit what your personal arrangements are with Crikey but you did say;
So please don’t get all precious because I did the obvious and asked Crikey admin the question.
Anyway if the terms are reasonable I may move there myself
“Pretty loose talk coming from a lawyer. Back up your allegations, please.
You’re kidding, right Beck?
You’ve blogged constantly about Jeremy’s personal relationships (despite the fact they have nothing to do with his arguments) and frequently hinted that Scott is unsuitable to be a teacher. Of course, you’re far too cowardly to actually come out and say that, beyond making snide hints.
It would be easier to list all the post on your blog that aren’tlies, smears or personal allegations.
Jeremy
Just to clarify my email to Crikey does not mention you, Poison Pen or any of your co-authors it is a purely general inquiry about hosting a blog there.
Promise you’ll let us all know what they say?
Hi Jeremy,
Sue you? I’m meant to be a ” liar, smearer, and stalker” so you should sue me. Good luck with that.
Poor little Jeremy can’t make any headway with me or Blair so he comes around here to take it out on innocent bystanders. And you reckon I’m gutless.
Sure Jeremy I already said that I would earlier in this thread
Readers are invited to enjoy the irony of Jeremy’s comment #48 in relation to the thread he links to in comment #46
Jeremy, just to clarify – neither Helen nor I link to J.F. Beck because it attacks you (or anyone on Grodscorp). Nor do we dislike you personally. Hey, I don’t even know you personally. I don’t always like your style of blogging, and sometimes your refusal to admit that you are wrong irritates me to high heaven. But hey, you probably don’t like my style either, which is just fine with me.
If you must know, I have an interest in the Israel/Palestine dispute, and I like to read J.F’s posts on that topic to get an alternative view. I find J.F’s deconstruction of Anthony Lowenstein amusing. That is how I got onto J.F’s blog.
An amusing post you link to Jeremy, and your call for tip offs about lousy left-wing commentators is a fair gesture at bipartisanship, but the fact that you only single out right-wing commentators in the *header* of your blog seems to clearly indicate that the blog is not bipartisan in spirit at all.
Still I reckon you’ll be able to get rich pickings from New Matilda, Anthony Loewenstein, and the occasional post on Larvatus Prodeo could warrant a response. That’s just what comes to mind at the moment.
“If you’re going to hassle Bolt you should also hassle Adams (into an impending grave preferably).”
This is just moronic. Sure Big Phil is self absorbed and a bit boring but Bolt has willfully tried to stir up racial tension with regard to the a section of the African community in Melbourne. And you’re happy with that? It’s not tit-for-tat, it’s about bringing the bastard to book.
Well, thanks to the time difference and my sporting commitments, much of this has unfolded in my absence, so I can really only make a few observations. They are my observations, not LE’s, and you can take them or leave them as you see fit.
1. As you should be able to see, the three of us here have notably different politics (one flaming liberal, one classical liberal, one moderate conservative — you guess who is which).
2. We can collaborate despite political differences. Maybe we’re expecting too much of other people to do likewise. Difficult to say
3. We don’t carry on-line stoushes into the ‘real world’, which is why J.F. Beck felt he could safely write to me about LE despite our public disagreements on other matters. I should add that I, too, find J.F. Beck’s blog valuable on the Israel/Palestine issue.
4. Iain Hall has, at various times, divided the ozblogosphere, and some of the things he has done have been utterly cockheaded. He knows this. He knows that both LE and I think this. However, he has also shown a willingness to walk away from that behaviour and learn.
5. His opponents, however, have continued to attack his manner of speech and class origin in a way that I find appalling. Maybe I’m letting the old Bolshie show too much, but I find the argument that working class people — particularly socially conservative working class people, who (let’s face it) are commoner than any other variety — should not be permitted to engage in public discourse because they offend their betters to be rather rich. I know a few High Tories over here who think like that. The Conservative Party can do without them, and so can everyone else.
6. Now on the payment issue: The Poison Penners are running ads from the same display ad company as us (doubleclick.com.au). Crikey will keep a portion (how much will be determined contractually), and the writers will get the rest. We have an identical arrangement with Online Opinion, but were able to keep our own blog URL and do our own design (which we prefer). I really will do a libertarian war dance if I hear the suggestion again that there is something wrong with making money from writing.
“Willfully tried to stir racial tension”
I don’t read Bolt very often, so bring us up to speed on the things he did to stir racial strife.
No point in making such an accusation without presenting the evidence. Otherwise people will think you’re just an overacting drama queen.
I’m going to be away for a couple of hours (work, thesis, devilling, natch), and ask that people play nice.
“Sue you? I’m meant to be a ” liar, smearer, and stalker” so you should sue me. Good luck with that.”
Thank god for the fact I don’t know who the hell you are, eh, “Beck”? Imagine if your real life details were connected with your campaigns and consequences flowed.
“An amusing post you link to Jeremy, and your call for tip offs about lousy left-wing commentators is a fair gesture at bipartisanship, but the fact that you only single out right-wing commentators in the *header* of your blog seems to clearly indicate that the blog is not bipartisan in spirit at all.”
I’m happy to apply the TBBWP blow-torch to anyone who pulls similar crap to Blair and Bolt. I just haven’t seen it from the left yet. If someone can highlight it for me, I’d be happy to criticise it.
So far all that’s been suggested have been clumsy metaphors by Deveny and Philip Adams getting some dates wrong. Not even close to the sort of thing we’re talking about combating.
“Readers are invited to enjoy the irony of Jeremy’s comment #48 in relation to the thread he links to in comment #46″
What irony? Leon tried to have a lame go at us and I batted it back at him. How’s that in any way of a kind with Beck’s persistent personal stalking behaviour?
Helen – it’s nice that you don’t take blogging stoushes “into the real world”. You should be aware that those you link to – tim and Beck in particular – do. Maliciously, and viciously. And for what? They just do it to people they disagree with.
And I don’t know any Australian lefties who pull that kind of crap.
I’m happy to apply the TBBWP blow-torch to anyone who pulls similar crap to Blair and Bolt. I just haven’t seen it from the left yet. If someone can highlight it for me, I’d be happy to criticise it.
Leftie, i genuinely like you. i think you’re a decent guy overall although I also think your economics sucks. On libertarian social issues you’re a decent chap.
But you can’t honestly pull a stunt like that comment and think you’ll get away with it.
Recall when Blair announced he had cancer? How many on your side of the fence were gleeful and making snide comments about his illness. You even referenced it, although you did wish him a speedy recovery etc.
So please don’t push that line.
I recall everyone on my side of the fence who commented wishing tim a speedy recovery, actually. I don’t recall any snide comments about his illness.
I also absolutely cannot recall anyone ever digging into tim Blair’s private life. I have no idea whether he’s married or not – nor do I care the slightest.
In clear contrast, tim has regularly made sport of my relationship status – including digging out an rsvp profile for the purpose of mockery.
Hi Jeremy,
My email address is available online if you need details for writ purposes.
Are you going to give details of my lies, smearing and stalking or are these simply more of your hyper-sensitive persecution fantasies?
Lefty:
People even at your site were gleeful and in fact you told a few to stop it.
Again I’m not suggesting you did this, however you wanted to know and now you do.
I’m also not suggesting that what happened to you was in any way legit.
Hi jc,
Since Jeremy’s mysterious comments’ erasure they aren’t visible online but are apparently available for him to link to; if he links to them we can all have a look.
“My email address is available online if you need details for writ purposes.”
Well, “JF Beck”, I have emailed you with that request.
We’ll see if you honour your posturing above.
JC – are you trying to claim a lefty equivalent to Blair or Beck via unciteable comments? No post – just comments you think you remember seeing?
And you’re not even trying to claim you know of any lefties who’ve found a blogger they disagreed with and hunted around for their online dating profile or similar.
My email address is available online if you need details for writ purposes.
Or he could just ride roughshod over your protestations about being called a stalker etc., and go on to find something more interesting to do. Which frankly, it seems you are powerless to prevent.
If he took your advice, then naturally the roles could reverse and he could be the one making futile demands or requests. But he’d have to do that voluntarily and if he doesn’t, which he doesn’t have to do, you’d start looking a little silly.
To be honest, it just looks sadistic and lonely. The mock civility is utterly unconvincing.
Hi Bruce,
Jeremy publicly called me a “a shameless liar, smearer, and stalker”. He really should support these allegations if he wants to hold onto what little credibility he has.
I’m sure he appreciates you attempting to fight his battles for him, however.
LE @ #56 – “…sometimes your refusal to admit that you are wrong irritates me to high heaven.”
I can never help but suspect that there is a tautology in disguise hidden under comments like these. I just keep getting that nagging sensation.
As was explained at the time of the haloscan problem, haloscan stopped showing comments and stopped letting people write them. I was (without my knowledge) volunteered for their testing of the new haloscan system, and after a few days of unreliable comments, I switched to Disqus. Unfortunately, Blogger wouldn’t work with both disqus and haloscan comments, so I had to lose them.
(I’d love to have them back if a solution to this technical issue can be found.)
In the meantime, they still exist, floating around on haloscan somewhere, and permalinks still work. It’s just that they’re not attached to the original posts, and I don’t believe there’s a way to reattach them without losing the current commenting system.
No conspiracy. Of course.
Hi Jeremy,
Please provide at least some substantiation of your allegations I’m a lying, smearing, stalker.
If your blog was Google-cached comments should be available. Why did you ask Google not to cache your blog?
JF Beck,
Yes he did assert those things and should logically speaking, substantiate them. Although I’m not ruling out the possiblity that he has done so already, elsewhere. Naturally if he hasn’t, well then you can always take him to task, can’t you?
The reasons I don’t call out for him to substatiate these claims is because firstly, I’m not taking what he says on face value (nor do I have anything predicated upon the truth of these claims). Secondly, I can’t see any immediate risk to anyone (particularly yourself), given that you write under a nom de plume for a largly incorrigible audience.
As for me fighting his battles, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t need me. Just take the way he turned your invitation back on you. If you were bluffing, he just called it.
If you weren’t bluffing, well, I’ve grown a bit tired of commentary on that kind of thing.
Hi again Bruce,
As always, it’s difficult to work out exactly what you’re on about. What bluff did I run?
#70 – The suggested use of email to resolve matters. Looks like a possible bluff to me.
Right, re writs (or claims and statements of claim, as they’re called in other jurisdictions). Any writ sandwiches are not to be eaten on this blog, by anyone. Eat your own writ sandwiches on your own blogs, in your own time. Thankyou.
With regard to lefties acting like cocks, Jeremy, here’s Club Troppo’s Ken Parish catching Phillip Adams and Media Watch out doing a beauty.
Then there was ex-journo Wayne Sanderson’s attempt to stalk me, both online and off. First he arranged an interview and represented that he was employed by Australian Story. It transpired that he’d last worked for Australian Story 10 years previously. Then he turned up under a sock at Catallaxy for months and months, solely to harrass me. It took ages and ages for Jason and I to work out who he was, and yes — it took Tim Blair to finally make the identification. As far as I’m aware, he’s still sending Jason Soon spurious legal threats.
That’s just two I can think of off the top of my head. There have no doubt been plenty of others. You have been the butt of genuine right-wing hatred — if it’s possible to make it any clearer — of which I roundly disapprove. I did at the time, and I do now. However, various righties have copped it as well, including after they’d stopped being cocks (Iain Hall) or never were cocks in the first place (me).
I do think creating this sort of point-scoring blogging culture also enables the behaviour that leads to blog-theft, stalking and other nastiness. Mark over at LP is surely right to argue (his observations are in comments) that the blogosphere should have moved on from the TSSH and their ilk. Sure, the actual bloggers themselves don’t do it any more (unlike the spinner crew), but there is still a swirling pit of nastiness out there. I think this Poison Pen blog enables it, and when I made my point about adding J.F. Beck to the bunch for ‘balance’, I think it should have been perfectly clear that I often disapprove of J.F. Beck’s blogging. He knows that, it’s public, and we’re square.
Somehow you and he and others have managed to carry your political differences across to your private lives, which I find frankly scary but unsurprising. After all, Phillip Adams compared me with a notorious killer, and Wayne Sanderson somehow decided that arranging a meeting with a strange woman under false pretenses was something other than incredibly sleazy.
It’s politics. It’s not life. There is a bloody huge difference.
SL,
My sincere apologies for cluttering up your otherwise respectable blog with this nonsense.
J.F, up to a point I wanted people to have this debate in a relatively calm environment. Now we haven’t delivered on that, mainly because we all work and LE has two young kids as well, but if it’s encouraged a bit of critical reflection, that’s a good thing. Apology accepted, and my apologies for not achieving what I’d set out to do.
It’s an interesting theory. Although I’m not sure Poison Pen has been around long enough to draw conclusions about its contribution to a culture of point scoring.
Except these people do have to work together. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if J.F. Beck found the notion a bit silly.
That and I’m sure you could find examples of conservative bloggers with politics like Beck’s, just without the history, thus mitigating the need to make quite as many qualifying statements.
Unsurprising maybe, although I’d personally avoid inferring responsibility to either the entire group, or individuals if I were going to direct “writ sandwiches” elsewhere.
Is it just me, or does “writ sandwiches” sound filthy? Is is supposed to?
I have this picture of someone with a big Vegemite grin burned into my mind’s eye now.
Jeremy, I said I recall those comments and I’m pretty sure I’m right. All you have to do is go to your blog and take a look because after all you did ask the question.
If you bother to read my comment I did say I thought it was an awful thing to do. But what’s the point of using that example which happened years ago to continue the stoush? After you graciously wished Blair the best with his impending surgery, he also publicly said he wouldn’t attack you again. From that point on it seemed things were over.
So I really think you’re now using all these old stoushes as an excuse to provide you cover for that silly blog, aren’t you?
Blair hasn’t spoken about you, I presume since that time and kept his word. I don’t read his blog so you can confirm if assertion is correct.
So please, don’t use the “dating” thing to legitimize that stupid blog. You just don’t like his politics; that’s all.
Jeremy seven months ago: “Some of his detractors have referred to the cancer he had recently (and about which he blogged and wrote in the newspaper), in what could be seen as an unsympathetic light.”
Jeremy now: “I don’t recall any snide comments about his illness.”
Just a few responses to various points raised here
Helen # 59
Anyone would think that I was an axe murderer the way that some people go on about things that I have done in the past. But as you say I have worked bloody hard to resist the temptation to recidivism that comes from the still constant provocation. Credit to Jeremy for making the effort to put our past differences behind him and to be willing to engage in civil debate with me, demonstrating that reconciliation is both possible and workable. Now if only the “spear carriers” in our own personal drama could get with the new script instead of being stuck in the first draft our little corner of the Ozblogosphere would be a far nicer place.
I sort of suspect that as most of my attackers are middle class socialists who have an idealised view of the “working class” that I represent the worst kind of “class traitor”; a working class man who has rejected the left, the so called progressive side of politics. But they still keep wanting to try it on. One of my most strident critics is busily munching on sour grapes at present because pursuant to my desire to move on I have excluded her sock puppet from my blog. But that is straying away from your point Helen; the other stick that is used to beat me is my domestic arrangement with my wife and as cutting as the constant nagging about it is, it and the “get a job” taunts are very boring, there is a certain irony that this abuse comes from “progressives” who are supposed to support the notion that a man should be just as willing to support a woman’s career (as I do for my wife) as women have been doing for men since the dawn of civilisation.
On the payment thing I think that it is every blogger’s dream to actually make some money from following the blogging vocation and I don’t for one minute resent anyone one of any persuasion managing to do that. While I was being sarcastic about moving my blogging to a platform that I would pay for (and potentially receive revenue from) there is no chance I would be doing it any time soon.
Jeremy #62
No Jeremy, the irony is in the comments thread where several commentators slag off people (who write in their own names) as viciously as any comments posted to Beck’s blog and you cite that thread here where you are complaining about Beck using anonymity to attack you. Can you see that now?
As for Leon’s joke of nominating Grods for Poison Pen scrutiny, If you were honest about it you would have to admit that it is a witty way to take the piss and I’d give you a ‘tick’ too for your own rather self-deprecating and witty retort. Such things done with good humour are an enhancement to blogging and online debate. Snarky vendettas like continuing crap generated by some of your pals from Grods are just dull and boring. Do you appreciate the difference?
Cheers.
Helen: of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but that old Club Troppo piece you link to isn’t at all beautiful. No doubt you appreciate that Ken Parish was defending your honour after Adams had screwed-up and insulted you so, but this is every bit as angry as anything PP has come up with so far:
Thankfully Parish didn’t stoop to the Grodsters’ use of the c-word, nevertheless I’ve read CT on occasion to try and learn something about economics and I was amazed by the vehemence of this post.
Read the comments section and you’ll see Nicholas Gruen attempt to rein in his fellow blogger, even though he too was critical of Adams, and to a lesser extent, Media Watch.
Now just imagine how angry you or Parish might have been if either of these offending parties had, say, unleashed dozens of psychotic winged monkeys onto the threads at your respective blogs…
I’ve just had to fish both Tim Blair and Nick W out of the spam can. Not the moderation queue, the spam can, so apologies about that, both of you. The spambots love a popular post.
Nick, I linked to Ken’s piece in part because I didn’t want to link to another post of Tim’s — Tim wrote extensively on the Phillip Adams business. It seems people from both sides in this stoush disregard anyone from the ‘other side’. I linked to Ken — a former Labor member of parliament in the NT — to avoid the imputation that only righties care about this stuff.
I meant ‘beauty’ in the Australian sense of ‘a beat example of the genre’ (of shafting one’s political opponents, in this case Phillip Adams doing the shafting). I don’t think Ken in his wildest dreams would imagine any of his writing to be ‘beautiful’, although I would beg to differ on some of his family and nature posts.
And — while folks have been complaining about their dating profile being blabbed, or people shafting them for being a stay-at-home dad (all of which are richly shitty, I might add) — I was being compared to a notorious killer. There is a difference.
That apart, having had dozens of winged monkeys of all stripes visited upon me regularly while I was at Catallaxy, I think I’m reasonably familiar with the type.
DEM @ 83: yes, I’m at that point now. It’s degenerated to the “Well, you said” “No you said”.
Bruce @ 72: I, of course, am never wrong, because I am *perfect*. /kidding
Do not meddle in the affairs of law professors, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
This is rather quotable.
I think I might make that my screensaver, Jacques.
LE
I think you should have it on your business cards!
Crikey and the PP crew must be enjoying all the free publicity here. Comments on their own blog are only averaging about a dozen per post.
Bolt in particular needs to exposed. He is a ubiquitous media personality with considerable influence. If you don’t like PP’s style then tune out. If you want ethical criticism that attacks what people do or say, then there is plenty of it around.
DEM@83 : BRILLIANT (One of yours?)
The Pure Posing (apart from Toby Zeigler) response to this (“Splash, the Ripples…”) says “Clearly, [SL] has no sense of humour.”
Ummm. Then neither do most of us who visit regularly and giggle here.
@ DEM : LOL!
LE:
Yes, rushing in to prove SL’s point – doesn’t augur well.
I’m fascinated by your detachment regarding what you linked to. It’s as if not only was Parish writing about a subject in which you have nothing invested, but that you’re doing us a favour by reporting the harsh things Rightwingers and even ex-ALP pols say…
Helen, your selective outrage is all too typical of the internet stoushes that you claim to be critical of and aloof from.
Is “I was being compared to a notorious killer” really the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth you want to impart about the Adams flap?
Why do you think old Uncle Phil was so keen to portray his fictional self as “having been chilled to the bone” by you?
For the purposes of the point I was making, it is the only relevant evidence.
I have no idea. Ask him. And more to the point, why do you care?
And why should I even care about what you obviously mistakenly think to be wonderful exercises in probing questioning?
DEM did you develop that little thing yourself??? You’re even more of a genius than I realised.
Wow a stoush!!!!!
Can I play?
Skeptic –
Working class people are letting down scores of Trots who want big crowds coming to their Megaphone Blitz and screaming: Whaddywant Now! in unison. These Trots are always calling for the Revolution and those bastards can’t be bothered showing up. They go and see Richmond play Hawthorne instead. Or watch Shrek with their kids!!!
They should be ashamed of themselves.
JC:
Jeremy:
See that’s democracy in action. Under Communism who controls the past controls the future. And there’s only one source of the Truth. So history is always a lie.
In democracies history is also always a lie. But we have a choice of two lies
Nick WS
Well he wasn’t keen. But he was chilled. Y’see he’s fancied himself an intellectual for a long time and, well y’know, every now and then he actually meets one and it registers in his subconscious that he’s actually a pompous blowhard bag of shit.
“They go and see Richmond play Hawthorne instead”
If you weren’t a revisionist running dog out of touch with the working class and their popular pursuits you’d know it was “Hawthorn”, not “Hawthorne”.
The Revolutionary Purity Committee will be dropping around in a few days, comrade.
Comments in this thread are now in legal dispute. With that in mind, I think it’s best closed until further notice so that the relevant legal beagles can get to work.
10 Trackbacks
[...] leads us to the next attacker: Skeptic Lawyer (aka Helen Demidenko Darville Dale), who links approvingly to Tim Blair’s piece but then, [...]
[...] them luck. And it seems to me that others are expecting (lamenting?) that they may be successful, even to the possible detriment of Crikey! “Crikey have decided to monetize the various lefty groups that dine out on attacking Tim [...]
[...] by Dave Bath on 2009-02-21 What with blog wars discussions, dain-bramaged policy makers, fundy-christian-contraception-is-murder-types, suits and [...]
[...] couple of days later Iain dropped into the Pure Poison-bashing thread at Helen 3D’s blog (thanks to Tobias for the awesome name for Helen Demidenko Darville Dale) and [...]
[...] Skeptic Lawyer [...]
[...] this effort, at Helen Dale’s site, Blair effectively defends disgusting anonymous comments made about [...]
[...] this effort, at Helen Dale’s site, Blair effectively defends disgusting anonymous comments made about Jeremy [...]
[...] has a well deserved reputation for posting without due regard to the facts, even accusing me of criminal activity:Beck is a shameless liar, smearer, and stalker.Sear subsequently trying to intimidate me by [...]
[...] Erstwhile Asian Correspondent contributor Jeremy Sear can't find a single "honest and fair and open to reasonable discussion" right-wing site so he asks his readers for recommendations. Helen Dale's Skeptic Lawyer site gets several nods but there's no way Sear is going to acknowledge these recommendations because Dale's co-blogger Legal Eagle dares to link to a right-winger Sear doesn't like: me. [...]
[...] Regardless, Crikey's Leftists are especially vocal, with Jeremy Sear and Possum particularly indignant. Sear's objections to Jericho's outing are especially ludicrous in that he objects to my alleged use of a pseudonym in publishing personal information about him freely avai…. [...]