Whatever the issue, the issue for this person seems to be me. I hate to use the word "obsession," but to cite just a few of the most recent examples:
- on DPF's blog, commenting on the issue of Don Brash's private life, the issue for this person was only the so-called "neo-con" agenda of Libertarianz and myself;
- also on DPF's blog, on the issue of Labour's Pledge Card spending, the issue for her was the so-called "genocidal" agenda of the Libertarianz and myself;
- and here at Not PC, to take two recent instances as an example, notices of the deaths of Peter Brock and Oriana Fallaci -- opportunities for tribute and reflection -- were used by this person instead to make the same accusations about me.
"Your support of genocide on SOLO has not gone unnoticed..." It certainly has by me.
"You got into bed with supporters of child rapist Capill..." I did not. Not even metaphorically.
"[You helped] to run Peron out of the country - and defame him as a paedophile..." Jim Peron was deservedly run out of the country by the Immigration Department because he was and is a promoter of paedophilia, as his disgusting magazine 'Unbound' made crystal clear, and it was as a promoter of paedophilia that I described him. Accurately. Unfortunately, I can't claim credit for having done the job of running him out.
"And as I have said before -- please don't try the farcical response that there are no Muslims who are doing anything worthwhile..." I haven't. Never have.
"You are afraid of me." I am not. That would be farcical. It is not fear I feel, it is disgust.
"You don't have a deep love of Judaism, just a deep, sick hatred of Muslims..." Etc., etc. etc. You get the point. There certainly is a "deep, sick hatred" in evidence here, and it hardly needs me to point out its locus.
"The only one who is a racist disgrace is you." Sigh. I'll let you form your own conclusions about this person, but as from now she is no longer welcome at this blog. As I've said many, many times before: "I welcome intelligent debate, but free speech does not require that I provide my unhinged attackers with either a platform or a megaphone."
You may decide for yourself the motivation of this person from the fact that in all the many months over which this person has attacked me for advocating that the west defend itself she has never once said anything -- not a word -- to condemn the scum who flew airplanes into buildings, who set bombs in crowded city trains in London and Madrid and in bars in Bali and Egypt filled with holidaying Australians, New Zealanders, Egyptians and Israelis, and who kidnapped and beheaded western journalists and engineers going about their business. Nor has she chosen ever -- not once -- to condemn those who planned and carried out these murders. This is despite numerous invitations to do so. On its own this is disgraceful enough, but to constantly and without evidence accuse me of advocating genocide, while failing -- even once! -- to lift her pen against the perpetrators of mass-murder is more than I am willing to stomach.
Stalker troll or whatever you want to call her, it's time for me to remove this platform from this commenter. Other bloggers may decide for themselves, but as for me she is no longer welcome here.
RELATED: Blog
9 comments:
Good for you. People such as her are unhinged and vicious and abuse the privilege of commenting in other people's space.
Your bandwidth. Your dollar. Your call.
That is fine if I am not welcome Peter.
My husband has been libertarian since the 1960's - and we have all Ayn's "The Objectivist" booklets, and all her written works - which I am well acquainted with.
What we object to is you calling yourself a Libertarian - which you clearly are not. You also were quite happy to take our money last election - and the one previous to that - and not include my husband on your candidate list.
You most certainly got into bed with the Flannigans, who supported - and continue to support - Capill's innocence in terms of child rape. Winston Peters was also courted in this matter. Whatever his sins -and they are many -Peron was run out of the country without redress. This may or may not have been your doing.
The issue of Darnton vs Clark has been posited as right wing- one has only to look at the website to confirm that.
You have continually supported the elimination of Muslims -despite my pointing you in the direction of the moderate Muslim blogosphere.
All the above is factual. It is your right to ban me from your site for speaking the truth.
You may deal with us via Mai Chen in future if you like.
"and not include my husband on your candidate list. "
Could this be the reason for the bitterness?
Anyway, pretty unforgivable to attack the host on obituary notices. A huge amount of time and effort must go into producing a blog like this ( thanks PC )and whether or not you agree or disagree with things written you should still show some respect or go somewhere else.
It's a pity really because careful and reasoned argument would be welcomed.
But if you're going to be a political blogger you're going to get a political response (childish mug slinging, snide remarks, stalkerish behaviour)... it comes with the territory.
As you well know, Peter, Ruth and I have disagreed on many a topic, not least the recent Israeli incursin into Lebanon. I think you both have good ideas and good commentary, (I think unhinged and vicious is a bit of an over-the-top characterization, "kg", although I agree it IS PC's blog, and his call) and while I agree that the posts on which Ruth commented were not appropriate ones for her to post on insofar as the subject matter and her commentary were not matched, I personally do not ban commenters or delete comments at all, or moderate discussions. I leave it to readers to duke it out. I will say also that I too am perplexed by anyone willing to put themselves on the line for Peron even though I do understand Ruth's concern for due process for ALL.
Mind that I am speaking from over a year of "knowing" both of you in the blogosphere and I confess that I do noptr have the entire picture insofar as New Zealand politics is concerned, howevger, I like both of you and hope this was not the irreconcilable circumstance that it appears to be. Having recently ben involved in such an incident, I don't think that Ruth has begun to cross lines that were crossed by my nemesis that has resulted in my refusal to have anything at all to do with him anymore (which, FWIW, was the posting of my home address on his blog in the middle of a long, rambling and vicious attack on my person, which I have ignored save for requesting that he remove my personal information. Even that requaest went ignored until others called him on his reprehensible behavior.)
Anyway, I hope you two find a way to patch this up.
And I hope I find a way to get some sleep and proofread my comments in future.
Well "donations" to secure a candidates list spot might work in other parties but not Libertarianz.
Aspiring to be on the list is reason enough alone, to NOT be selected.
Exactly why this would be PC's fault is beyond me. When my recollection is that he did not hold any Executive Office for the '02 or '05 election.
Ruth, Peter hasn't held a Libertarianz executive post for some time, so he didn't take the money - the party did, which at the last election meant Bernard and the one before that meant Russell Watkins. I remember the process of drawing up the 2005 candidate list as well, but you didn't notify the leader, secretary or the president of this concern to my knowledge. Helpful also if you note in 2002 there were only constituency candidates because of a balls up.
PC has never supported the elimination of Muslims - such utter nonsense and you should know better. I am sure he believes the world would be a better place if nobody believed in the sacrificial reasonless religion of Islam - but it is hardly genocidal to want people to believe in something else, like reality and themselves.
Ruth frothed:
"That is fine if I am not welcome Peter."
Who gives a rat's arse whether you think it's fine or not Ruth?
Ruth frothed:
"You may deal with us via Mai Chen in future if you like."
You stupid wench! What part of "begone, I never want to hear from you again" don't you friggin' understand?!??!
PC's banned you because he DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
Post a Comment