In view of the fact that a post of mine to Webdiary has been unnecessarily censored by the editor ‘David’ (I don’t know the surname) I republish it here in its entirety. I do this in order to reframe it back into its original context that the Webdiary editor decided to change in order to suit his own argument about why he thought the original comments I made about Will Howard and C. Parsons were abusive. Webdiarists and other readers would no doubt be aware already of some of the deceiving practices of the right-wing at Webdiary and the protection they receive from some elements of the editorial team.
Ed. David, I’m sorry that I have to persist in this matter.
My statements of deceitfulness by other Webdiarists are hardly unsupported and are, indeed, self evident if one cares to review the appropriate posts. The fact of the matter is Will Howard offered documents that were written by ex-Israeli generals, ex-Israeli intelligence experts and Israeli nuclear experts of an Israeli think-tank and then offered them as ‘non-partisan’. Had they been offered as ‘non-biased’ then that would not have been a problem as that could easily have been refuted (or not) on purely technical grounds. But to offer them as ‘non-partisan’ – even if they were unbiased – is deceitful.
With regard to C. Parsons, one need look no further than his post entitled ‘Jaw, Jaw, Jaw. War, War, War.’ to see quite clearly that he has attributed to me in a deceitful and deliberate way a quote that was not mine. He says: Damian Lataan: "Gaza pullout justifies terror campaign, Hamas claims." It stares you right in the face, David. Hardly ‘unsupported’ as you contend.
I am aware that Webdiary editors often do a thankless task and do need to maintain standards that have been set by Margo and developed over this last year or so, but I can assure you that while I often push stuff right up to the edge, I also make a conscious effort to refrain from making personally abusive comments on Webdiary. I believe that my comments about Will Howard’s and C. Parsons were made on the basis of facts that are to the best of my knowledge true. Making such comments that I have made about Messrs. Howard and Parsons were not something I did lightly or without consideration.
I have no problem whatsoever about Webdiarists making personally abusive comments about me – as I have stated several times before, I am not in the slightest bit interested in what people say or think about me personally – but I always will react to comments and statements deliberately aimed at misleading, hoodwinking or flat-out lying to Webdiarists.
For the version that appeared at Webdiary click here.