Censorship and Lefties


This is why I don’t know whether “SNIPping” obnoxious Lefties’ comments is always a good idea.

Serial liar (see here and here, just for a taste) and commenter with a strong track record of abusing all and sundry on the Bolt blog (see comments here to view typical abuse) “Rachel” submitted a typically Rachel comment to a Bolt post (“For a sliming, Crikey’s effort stinks”) last night:

Hmmm. By my counting that’s the 4th time in as many weeks you’ve been been completely discredited by what you would describe as your opponents.

The first when you showed yourself to be a boorish, insolent oaf on Q and A, and were practically called as such by Senator Coonan, and required moderation from the host for your constant interruptions in not letting others speak. The second on Insiders recently when Annabel Crabb called your bluff on your now infamous graphs, only to be accused of heckling on your blog the next day. The third was undoubtedly today’s contribution to humanity and compassion for an abandoned infant left to die in a bus shelter by trying to score anti AGW political points from the whole sorry episode. And now this. You are completely out of your depth and trying to discredit the scientist who has uncovered your deception simply reinforces the perception I gained from Q and A about your boorishness and insolence.

Give it up. You are way past that moderate position on the spectrum you always claim for yourself. Anyone who still thinks you are balanced and bi-partisan on the issue of climate change who has now seen you in all your ignominious glory can only be a rusted on religious zealot.
Rachel (Reply)
Thu 24 Jul 08 (08:57pm)

Now that comment was no more or less obnoxious than the majority of her previous contributions, but for some reason the moderators on duty this morning chose to retrospectively “SNIP” it, giving Rachel and her champions cause to cry “Censorship!” and allowing Rachel to falsely claim that (in her words) her comment had contained nothing but “reasoned, calm highlighting of things that have actually happened over the past few weeks.”

I’m just saying, sometimes it might be best to let idiocy and abuse stand unchequed, so that people can judge “what’s what” for themselves, and take them on accordingly. When they are censored, Lefties can claim that they were simply writing about butterflies and unicorns and were unjustly censored simply for being Lefties, and the SNIP and their claim are all that remains to judge by.

(Full text of sub-thread as it stands as of 7:10pm Friday AEST, her 8:57pm comment having been SNIPped around 7am this morning, below, or click here if my formatting’s too dodgy):

* * * * *

Hmmm. By my counting SNIP…vile, abusive post. And defamatory of the host. Bolt Moderators.

Rachel (Reply)
Thu 24 Jul 08 (08:57pm)
Ross of Darlo replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:31pm)

Is this the same Rachel who was caught out lying about the anti-vilification laws in WA? “Give it up”, you say? “Out of one’s depth”, you say?

Regardless, to back up your current assertions, do please cite an instance of the human cause of climate change. Just one will do. Cheers.

mh replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:34pm)

Still smarting from your “just ten names” humiliation, Rachel?

hkcapitalist replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:41pm)

Ad Hominem. Nuff said.

Rachel replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:42pm)

Is this the same Rachel who was caught out lying about the anti-vilification laws in WA?

No. It is however the same Rachel who was misquoted by several of Andrew’s readers who surprisingly never properly read anything that is put in front of their own eyes.

Regardless, to back up your current assertions

My ‘current’ assertions (as you would know if you’d read what I have written) are to do with Andrew being discredited on an issue he hangs his hat on. And I think you’ll find that the evidence as it is coming to light makes Andrew look even more alarmist than how he paints those who do not share his views.

LOL

cheers

pots replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:43pm)

Hmmm. By my counting that’s the 4th time in as many weeks you’ve been been completely discredited by what you would describe as your opponents.

Hmmmm. And how many times has Rachel been completely discredited as a dishonest, even lying, commenter on this blog? To coin a phrase, “Give it up.”

“discredited?” replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (09:49pm)

Completely discredited.

Tobias Ziegler replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (10:06pm)

Ross, you do realise that your sad attempt to use Bolt’s “Name just one” rhetoric with global warming is entirely daft, right?

Rachel replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (10:20pm)

Still smarting from your “just ten names” humiliation, Rachel?

None. And I’m taking your refusal to engage with the issue as evidence that you know (as others must surely) Andrew has been upstaged on an issue he hangs his hat on. And why don’t you use your real screen name (same goes for “discredited”?) Why do you feel you have to hide behind pseudonyms?. What is it with Righties and a fear of adult debate?

No mh, quite the contrary. I stand by my views, unlike you who caves in when put under pressure – Iraq war if you will?

Hmmmm. And how many times has Rachel been completely discredited as a dishonest, even lying, commenter on this blog?

Ross of Darlo replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (10:23pm)

Rachel,

I repeat, though I know you will continue to obfuscate, if you’re so sure of your assertions then please disclose, as you put it, “the evidence as it is coming to light”. All you have to do is back up your assertions with proof. Such a straightforward, little thing to do, yet you seem never able to provide any for scrutiny.

Zodiac replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (10:27pm)

Rachel – Welcome back, you was teh missed smile

curious replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (10:53pm)

Rachel,

Using FACTS to PROVE a point is NOT being discredited.

Try it some time. Please.

Ever named that 10 yet, will you ever?

Ross of Darlo replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (11:04pm)

Tobias Ziegler

Toby, If you want to engage me, you have to be able to back up your assertions. So why, then, do you consider it “daft” that I request assertions be backed by proof? Is the concept of proof really so threatening to your complacent, consensual groupthink?

Rachel replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (11:09pm)

Ross of Darlo
I’m assuming you’ve clicked on the link, in which case you would not have received the entire article Michael James wrote for Crikey. In the original article Dr James uses Andrew’s graphs to illustrate his rebuttal of Andrew’s claims. This is very sly reporting on the paper’s behalf, and instead of replying to you I will wait until the entire article (graphs and all) is replicated for all readers to see.

Then we will have our discussion.
cheers

t replied to Rachel
Thu 24 Jul 08 (11:47pm)

Rachel, you saying you are not a liar on this blog, does not make you not a liar.

Occasionally you have something to say that is valid. The rest of the time you betray any perception that you put forward a view that is intelligent.

gert of no religion replied to Rachel
Fri 25 Jul 08 (12:12am)

Rachel have you ever thought about the fact that your consistently vicious anti AB comments never fail to be posted on this blog?

Don’t you think that this is a bit of a window into the character of the man, that he gives his opinions, and then permits people like you, who are consistently vociferously contrary to express their politically motivated rage.

Try doing that on some of the left wing blogs and see how far you get.

And BTW because your arguments are so transparently politically rhetorical, you condemn yourself to being generally considered to lack any credibility.

That’s very sad.

Acutally the 6am moderating shift has snipped her original post from last night. Different moderators, differen tolerance. Bolt Moderators.

mh replied to Rachel
Fri 25 Jul 08 (09:12am)

No mh, quite the contrary. I stand by my views, unlike you who caves in when put under pressure – Iraq war if you will?

I have no idea what Rachel is alluding to, but I will just say that I fully supported the Iraq invasion and I think the American achievements in Iraq have been fantastic.

Rachel replied to Rachel
Fri 25 Jul 08 (10:46am)

Different moderators, differen tolerance. Bolt Moderators.

You’re not wrong. A horrendously intolerant and innaccurate anti-gay post on today’s forum by marcusbondi (8.40am): acceptable. My reasoned, calm highlighting of things that have actually happened over the past few weeks: vile abuse.

Shane replied to Rachel
Fri 25 Jul 08 (10:58am)

Must agree with Rachel.
I’ve had stuff called abuse, that was no where near being abusive, often in a thread where I was abused far worse myself. Selective moderation stifles debate.
I’d personally prefer it if nothing were moderated.

Gordon from Perth replied to Rachel
Fri 25 Jul 08 (05:06pm)

My reasoned, calm highlighting of things that have actually happened over the past few weeks: vile abuse.

Heh. I’ve seen a copy of your little rant, Rachel. If that was “reasoned” and “calm,” then I’m a rich female stolen generations Aboriginal doctor who teaches at med school in Denmark with a practice 400+km away in Perth and who has never told a lie…

* * * * *

So as I said, in retrospect it probably would have been better to have let her comment stand, rather than to let her and her supporters now claim that Bolt systematically censors “reasoned, calm,” non-abusive comments merely because of political leanings.

9 Responses to “Censorship and Lefties”

  1. bingbing Says:

    Half felt like posting…. but… It can’t be Bernie, he’s been there for ages but at least one of his moderators is waaaaay too overzealous.

  2. bingbing Says:

    Any other interesting posts he’s made? Haven’t checked it for days…

  3. spot_the_dog Says:

    I was out most of the day, Bingbing, just read the Forum, the Crikey column and a column on Flannery’s prediction that Perth would “die” vs. the fact that we’ve now had more rain & got more water in our damns than we’ve had in about 10 years. The rest look to be misc. politics & global warming; I just don’t have time to keep up these days.

  4. spot_the_dog Says:

    Just counted – he put up 17 posts today. Too many for this brown dog to read & follow!

  5. bingbing Says:

    17? Shit. BTW. QLD Damns at 40%.

  6. TimH Says:

    #5 You teach English?
    Was that deliberate, or just a faux pas?

  7. Ash Says:

    Isn’t Rachel the one with the sports car, the electronic PA, the human PA, the farm, the ute, the 4WD, the medical practice, the professorship teaching interns at a hospital, the 40% Aboriginal blood, the husband, the grown up kids, the uncle who is a Cardinal, the Confirmation and First Communion at one of Sydney’s biggest churches, and all the assorted other crap?

    Or am I getting Rachel and Jane mixed up? You know, Jane/Brian Phillips/Philip Shehan, those of the 500 page spiels about all the great stuff they’ve done?

  8. bingbing Says:

    #6 A faux pas. Actually, more of a Freudian slip as I was thinking about the trolls at Bolt’s at the time.

    PS Ash, can you have the posts numbered again? It sucked having to count down. Either that, or set it up like news.ltd.

  9. spot_the_dog Says:

    ~~waves at Rachel, who’s been here searching for any mentions of her name~~


Well, SAY something...

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: