She writes: “That is the sort of stuff we read on TB [presumably ‘TB’ is Tim Blair] and Damian Lataan's site, and yes often posted there by Webdiarists seeking to personally insult, deride and belittle others here personally. But such has no place here and thankfully most have now been banned or left WD.”
I must say I’m a little disappointed that my name was mentioned in the same sentence as Tim Blair’s but then that’s exactly the type of thing a control freak like Jenny Hume would do; nothing like a little wedging of opposite ends to try and keep on top.
Demanding apologies is another characteristic of Jenny Hume’s though this time she has gone one further and demanded that the offending comment from Paul Walter be “taken down”.
However, there is an upside to Jenny Hume’s arrogance; she has threatened to have no further part in Webdiary if the comment is not taken down or if there is no apology forthcoming, indeed, as she says, “It is not often [sic] I put my foot down but this is one such occasion when I am doing so.”
We can only hope that she is true to her word and that Webdiary can see the back of this disruptive control freak and get back to discussing the real issues that concern the world without her demanding what can or cannot be discussed.
Within just a few minutes of posting the above it seems that Webdiary has caved in to Jenny Hume's demands; Richard Tonkin has taken down the offending comments. However, if anyone was able to archive or save the offending comment, or if Paul Walter would like to send them to me here, I'll gladly republish them.
What a control freak!
For those that would like to know, the comment from Paul Walter that Jenny Hume demanded be taken down from the Webdiary site went thus:
“Out of consideration to Scott Dunmore, will move finally to Jenny Hume's appalling comment, that any possible harm done the photo model is solely the mother's responsibility who hopefully should suffer ( if the desired harm to the girl comes) rather than opportunist scum Dahvinist media or the numberless vulgar hysterics who have drawn attention to the girl in indulging the luxury of indulging their own hangups, prejudices and compulsive control freakery and inevitably, the parading of their ignorance and own unconscious but publicly overt, meanness of spirit.”
Humes response went like this:
“Would the editor who allowed this comment please refer to my last comment on this thread and tell me if that is a correct interpretation of what I wrote because to me it is a deliberate, vicious, nasty warped interpretation for the purpose of a vicious personal attack on me by Paul Walter. And his closing remark is an extremely offensive personal judgement about me and the motives of people like me who voice genuine concern about the use of children in such a manner.”
For Hume the lively debate had stopped being about a controversial issue; it had become about her and her demands.
Paul sums it up nicely; 'prejudices and compulsive control freakery'.
(Salvaged comments courtesy of Phil)