David Roffey, company secretary and editor at the Australian current affairs blog, Webdiary, has exposed his true colours over the recent debacle involving ex- Webdiary director Craig Rowley who Roffey has accused, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, of using multiple identities in debate.
This accusation demonstrates Roffey’s outrageous hypocrisy over the question of identities of debaters at Webdiary. As I have noted many times before in previous posts, the extreme right-wing commentator Eliot Ramsey continues to be allowed to peddle his propaganda despite everyone being fully aware that this person is none other than C. Parsons, an equally notorious peddler of right-wing propaganda at Webdiary in the past.
As a direct result of Craig Rowley being banned for reasons that no evidence was presented to support I wrote to Roffey saying the following:
David Roffey
It’s a pity that Webdiary has seen fit to ban Craig Rowley accusing him of adopting other identities, an accusation, I might add, that is not accompanied by any evidence – at least none that you have offered. This banning is gross hypocrisy if you do not ban Eliot Ramsey for the same reasons. There is abundant evidence demonstrating that Eliot Ramsey is C. Parsons, who used to post at Webdiary just prior to being banned himself yet you have made no mention at all of Eliot Ramsey’s deceitfulness or commented on why he is allowed to continue posting while you ban others.One now needs to wonder about your own credibility, Roffey, as well as that of Kingston’s who we know accepted Parsons as part of the right-wing with which the left and centre commentators could ‘debate’ with providing grist for Webdiary’s mill. Kingston has in the past openly said that keeping the right-wing commentators were essential if Webdiary were to be viable; indeed, commenting on the Holocaust and alternative ideas about the events of 9/11 were banned – and Kingston said so at the time – because the right-wing Webdiarists threatened to leave if such debate were allowed. Kingston as we know caved in to the right and their threats. It seems now that you and Kingston are further pandering to the right-wing’s whims by adopting double standards about who can and cannot post at Webdiary.I know that Kingston has suffered stress from death threats, etc., but perhaps if she had stood up to the right-wing and their thugs in the first place she might feel a bit better about herself. Pandering to the likes of Eliot Ramsey and their right-wing garbage certainly does not help and Webdiary’s continued accommodation of these liars and fraudsters reveals only the true corrupt position of Webdiary management.
Lataan
To which Roffey replied simply…
Damian you continue to be the sort of complete tosser that drove me away from the left thirty years ago ...
David Roffey
My response to that was:
I assume then, Roffey, since you are not able to address the issues I have raised with regard to both Craig Rowley’s banning and Eliot Ramsey still being allowed a platform at Webdiary that you are indeed part of the deceit and fraud that has reared its head there. Furthermore, since you concede that you are now no longer part of the Left, one can assume that you are now a party to the right-wing and support their lies and deceit and, indeed, are a part of it.
The Left, Roffey, I can assure you are far better off without lying and deceiving ‘tossers’ like you in it.
Lataan
Craig Rowley has asked me if he could air his side of the story at this blog and I have invited him to do so since Webdiary is unlikely to allow him to respond to Roffey’s accusation there. Since many Webdiarists do visit my blog, I think it is only fair that Craig Rowley be provided with an opportunity to have his side of the story told with a strong likelihood that other Webdiarists will be able to read for themselves both sides of the story – something which Webdiary have a very strong history of not otherwise allowing.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
12 comments:
Damian,
The type of people you describe are known as authoritarian conservatives. They have several characteristics which show up in the quote below taken from John Dean's book.
"Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades."
MK is a forthright person who takes someone at their word. Unfortunately these people deal in deception, and laugh at well intentioned people who play by the rules.
As you have identified there is evidence that some diarists are posting under more than one name. MK is at a disadvantage dealing with them, because they think it's funny to ignore the rules. As long as they can make their point which usually means attacking someone from the left - anything goes. They revel when anyone from the left leaves the site.
I must congratulate you on your site and your reporting of issues that are buried by the MSM.
Hello Damian,
I took Jacob's point on board (as Jacob is a person whom I much respect), and consequently sent an email (below) to Margo Kingston and other members of the Webdiary team pointing out the path to resolving the issue. I hold of sharing more of the complete records for a reasonable time in order to give Margo and my former colleagues the opportunity to do the correct thing and seek to cooperate with me in resolving the issue.
---
From: Craig Rowley
Sent: Wed 3/10/2007 3:07 PM
To: Margo Kingston
Cc: fionarj@XXXXXXXXX; richard_tonkin@XXXXXX
Subject: RE: David Roffey's Management Update
Hello Margo,
David Roffey has decided to escalate the situation by publishing such a nasty "management update" and I don't understand why you would condone that, especially after I have been consistent in asking for a resolution process that accords with the Editorial Policy you had published.
However, it is apparent that you must have decided that it is acceptable for David Roffey to take such a very mean and cowardly approach, escalating the issue by publishing a personal attack on me (whilst not allowing a right of reply) rather than trying to resolve the issue.
My hand is now being forced by what David has done with his attempt to hurt me and I'll have to take the whole story public just to defend myself against David's malicious misrepresentations.
There is still an opportunity to resolve this. All it takes if for you and David to do the right thing and act in a manner that is ethical, accountable and transparent. All it takes is a published statement by you acknowledging the truth and calling on David Roffey to retract the lies and offer an apology to me and the other people he has lied about.
Sincerely,
Craig Rowley
Apols. The second sentence of my earlier comment should start: I will hold off ...
Valter, thanks for your insightful comment. I agree that there are people out there that will take advantage of the likes of Margo Kingston but unfortunately it works two ways: Margo Kingston seems just as adept at taking advantage of a situation that arises even if it is at the expense of the pursuit of the truth and answers to the problems that beset the world. All that matters to Kingston nowadays is the debate and not the answers that the debate may conclude with. All that is important to her is that the debate continues so that her ‘creation’, Webdiary, can continue with all accolades going to her from her supporters. It reassures her. It seems she is willing to sacrifice her own credibility and even her own health in order to achieve that end. Kingston and Roffey have no interest in resolving the problems that beset the world by discussing the causes of those problems because their priorities lay elsewhere. Webdiary has become their cause rather than the vehicle by which real causes can be discussed and maybe resolved. They never will be while they allow, and then become party to, the lies, deceit and fraud which they have allowed in pursuit of the cause of ‘Webdiary’, ‘Kingston’ and ‘Roffey’, as against truth, honest debate and the search for answers which it originally set out to do.
Craig, it will be interesting to see what transpires from your endeavours to seek Margo Kingston’s opinion on the matter and an apology from Roffey though, as far as Roffey is concerned, I wouldn’t be holding my breath.
If the need arises, please feel free to use this blog as a platform from which you may wish to tell your story and voice your own opinion, especially if such an opportunity this is denied of you at Webdiary. You know that in pursuit of the truth and the exposure of liars and fraudsters you have my support and of many other Webdiarists who are unable to publicly make themselves known due to the dictatorial style of Kingston and Roffey. It’s indicative of what Webdiary has become when many of its participants can’t even voice public support for another Webdiarist through fear of being banned themselves from being able to post there!
What a pile of laughable rubbish.
This was bound to happen eventually.
Rowley, your dispute resolution process is particularly funny. Part of it includes calling people liars?
I don't think dispute resolution was ever your strong point. You are quite good at maintaining conflict but resolving it is not really your cup of tea.
Heidelberg, the master of hypocrisy, strikes again!
You seem to think it’s OK for Roffey to call Rowley a liar by accusing Rowley of adopting other identities but you jump up and down because Rowley, in defending himself against the accusation of lying, accuses Roffey of having lied in the first place!?
Part of conflict resolution is exposing the truth. This, in turn, may expose people as liars. If the cap fits, wear it.
The only pile of ‘laughable rubbish’ here, Heidelberg, is you and your self-centred so-called ‘liberalism’ and the hypocrisy you display by even calling yourself ‘Heidelberg’.
Hello Damian, as you know David Davis is not exactly the most unbiased of commentators when it comes to anything I say or do.
Of course, he's made up stuff about me and published under his 'Harry Heidelberg' pseudonym and some of it as egregious as David Roffey's recent stuff.
I reckon they've similar personalities in certain ways ... something everyone may be better informed about next week.
Why next week?
Well, as you know, I've got the first part of the story written up and I am doing what is fair and what is conducive to conflict resolution by giving Margo that reasonable time in which to respond to my request that she set the record straight and ask David Roffey to publish an apology.
Oh ... and David, as you seem keen to deal yourself into this and you are on friendly terms with Margo these days, perhaps a better use of your time would be to contact her and ask her why she didn't do anything to deal with the issue back in June; that is if you are genuinely interested in helping resolve the dispute.
You could also ask Margo why she used punitive measures in response to reasonable requests I'd made that were entirely in keeping with Webdiary Editorial Policy.
The alternative is to keep out of an issue you really know nothing about and only what to be involved in because you hate me.
Apols. that should be:
... only want to be involved in because you hate me.
OK I will stay out of it. I agree it has nothing to do with me.
I neither have an interest in resolving it nor getting involved with it.
It does seem like an extraordinary development though and given our bitter "debates" in former times, it was natural I would make a comment.
That said, it is not my issue and I want no part of it!
Webdiary; open letter & call to action.
Subtitle: save the planet.
-=*=-
With the recent ejection of Craig Rowley, and subsequent statement by David Roffey on Damian Lataan's blog, it has become apparent that Webdiary, far from being any sort'a solution, is well and truly part of the problem.
David Roffey:
«Damian you continue to be the sort of complete tosser that drove me away from the left thirty years ago ...»
[DAVID ROFFEY ... HIS TRUE COLOURS]
(Disclosure: yes, I have a gripe, my own ejection following my attempts to counter the Jay White = Paul Morrella = lying fraud and troll was unjust and also part of the same problem. In reply to my query: "Did you not look at Morrella?" Margo Kingston answered "No. That's the past, before I came back. I'm looking to the future. I'd like us to start afresh." In this way, White/Morrella was enabled to continue destructively trolling, injustices accumulated.)
David Roffey has now made inaccurate/untrue and unsubstantiated allegations about both myself and Craig Rowley, a fine situation indeed. Allegations, mind you, that could be considered slanderous and/or defamatory and outside the internet would probably be actionable. My conscience, not just BTW, is quite clear, as appears Craig's, we are both fighting for truth and justice and hold the moral high-ground. Some of my conflict traffic with Webdiary can be seen on my blog; without such transparency external to Webdiary, no-one usually sees what Webdiary censors. And by blocking any input from so-called 'banned' posters, there is no come-back possible within Webdiary itself. How fair; how just. Not!
Far from being a storm in a tea-cup, the recent history of Webdiary shows just what's going on; the reappearance of a swag of posters 'of the right,' better referred-to as right-wing trolls, marks a deliberate and management-supported moving to the right of the whole blog.
Specifically, supporters of the current regimes of the US, UK, Aus and Israel are all pushing the (filthy, lying) propaganda of the problem; they are mostly disinterested in debate other than to derail or stifle it.
The wise response is (should be) clear and the time has come to cease debating anyway; solutions need to be identified, then implemented - starting yesterday.
If anyone thinks they still need convincing, these:
a) Perkins' "Hit Man,"
b) Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and
c) Monbiot's "Heat." (The last specifies the scale of the problem: a 94% reduction of CO2 is required by each of the US, UK & Aus.)
-=*end*=-
PS#1 Anyone knowing the eml@s of Angela Ryan and/or Alga Kavanagh is asked to send them a note drawing their attention to this post.
PS#2 The obvious tasks are three:
1. Reduce the greenhouse to eliminate the threat.
2. Reduce the world's population to a sustainable level.
3. Eliminate the Friedman rip-offs and install justice for all.
Anyone knowing any of the 'hows' of doing (3) please let me/us/the world know.
[cross posted]
Post a Comment