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.

Thursday, September 20, 2007


It’s a very small world that the nauseatingly patronising fraud Eliot Ramsey of Webdiary fame lives in. Yesterday (19 September) a person calling herself Susan Moy joined the ranks of Webdiarists and takes up an instantly lively discussion with the so-called Eliot Ramsey about the artist Peter Kingston. Webdiary editor Fiona Reynolds had her curiosity aroused and so does a bit of background checking on the mysterious ‘Susan Moy’ only to discover that the real Susan Moy had had her identity usurped by someone pretending to be her.

After having read this I decided that I might have quick ‘Google’ myself of the mysterious Susan Moy. Within moments I discovered that Susan Moy is the Festival Publicist for the 2007 Manly Arts Festival and that – and this is the real spooky bit – none other than Chris Parsons, who mysteriously disappeared from Webdiary just days before Eliot Parsons… er, I mean Ramsey appeared on the scene, is the Communications Officer for the same event!

How long, one wonders, will Margo Kingston continue to allow this obvious fraudster to keep posting his obfuscating garbage at Webdiary?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Haha! Well sleuthed Damian! This is getting hysterically funny. Of course, we KNOW it's just one of life's little coincidences...

It's a wonder, though, why Seep sees the need for the 'Eliot' charade?

Damian Lataan said...

Jacob, I suspect that Eliot Parsons will carry on with total disregard to the fact that his deceit and charade is about as transparent as his incredulous arguments.

Anonymous said...

You've gotta laugh, though, Damian. This is pure comedy gold.

Let me see...

Eliot Ramsay is, in all likelihood, C Parsons

Someone called Susan Moy, who was impersonated on Webdiary, works with a Chris Parsons.

Someone (possibly C Parsons/Eliot Ramsay, or someone connected with them/he/she/it, who knows) used the 'Susan Moy' identity as a sock puppet to attack Richard Tonkin via Peter Kngston and, by extension, the APEC demos.

Sure, it's pretty appalling when you think about it, but it yielded more pure comedy gold. Whoever impersonated Susan Moy made the persona such a 'lefty' caricature that Geoff Pahoff, who had just "dropped by", was impelled to defend Eliot Ramsay against 'her' attacks.

Apparently the sock puppet fulfilled all of Geoff's preconceptions about 'the left'. He opined: "Ah yes. The usual fistful of personal slings at a commenter who for his part has kept his eye right on the topic. With just that right amount of superciliousness and outright class snobbishness mixed in. Good thing the target-commenter has an eye only for the ball though. Had he responded to the defenders of the public critics in the streets and art galleries in anything like the tone they use with him... well there are limits aren't there?"

Damian, it doesn't get any funnier than this!!!

Damian Lataan said...

Jacob, I can see the funny side of it when it is viewed in isolation; the whole Parsons/Ramsey thing has become quite farcical. However, it also has some serious ramifications, most obvious of which is Webdiary’s credibility which, in turn, reflects not only on Margo Kingston but all those that take debate seriously at Webdiary.

I suppose one could argue that because Parsons/Ramsey’s deceit and fraudulence is so transparent it serves the lefts purpose adequately because it demonstrates the lengths to which right-wing propagandists are prepared to go in order to shove their propaganda and rhetoric. Exposing the right-wing for the fraudsters, deceivers and liars that they are can only be a positive for those of us on the left. The more they are exposed for the liars that they are the better. We don’t hear too much anymore from those pseudo-academics Will Howard and Dylan Kissane who have already been exposed as liars and deceivers, and Pahoff and Lyvers are so obviously that far to the right with their Islamophobic extremist Zionism and support of continued killing and war that they’ve fallen off the edge and are now seen as an embarrassment even to other Zionists.

I guess once exposed as liars these right-wing propagandists become an asset to the left but, while it is easy for us to laugh at them once their ridiculous antics and deceits are exposed, they have up until then wasted the time of those that are trying to make serious suggestions about how to make the world a better place for us all to live in – and not just for those that have the greatest ability to lie about what is really going on in this world.

Anonymous said...

Well, it occurs to me that another explanation is that Seep wants to mask his identity for valid reasons that he has explained to MK, and she has concurred and therefore proscribed comment on the matter.

That's fair enough, in my view, if someone has legitimate grounds for wanting to use a nom de plume. Personally, I'm not particularly fussed what anyone calls himself.

Granted, though, it's at least a little unfair on Seep's 'opponents' to be expected to carry on through the confusion without explanation.

But as I suggested, the really nasty aspect to all this is the 'Susan Moy' thing: a) the fact that someone's identity has been ripped off; and b) the strong possibility that Seep actually used it as a sock puppet.

Re your concerns about Webdiary's credibility, the thing about it is that the concept is of an open community based upon goodwill. As such, it's wide open to abuse by folks who want to run an agenda, up to and including its destruction.

It's a really nice idea, but personally I don't think it ever really had a hope of surviving in any coherent form, for the above reasons (among others such as want of a viable financial model). As we've seen, it lurches from crisis to crisis, but so far has remained afloat thanks to a core team who try to keep MK's 'dream' alive.

By the way, the first comment on this thread is the url of Hamish's latest dummy spit. Apparently no-one wants to prate about the Matildas. I don't blame him or them.

Damian Lataan said...

Jacob, I think Kingston would have told Webdiarists about any arrangement she may have come to regarding Parsons/Ramsey’s identity in order to lay the matter to rest once and for all. No, that is not the case at all. A person now calling himself Ramsey was a person who called him/herself C. Parsons. Kingston indicated her own suspicions earlier on when Ramsey first appeared at Webdiary but was then satisfied that Ramsey was who he said he was based only on his denial that he was C. Parsons.

I don’t have a problem with someone wishing to comment anonymously as long as others involved in the debate are aware of it as in the case of Alan Curran for example. We know Curran isn’t his real name but we also know that whoever Curran is he only ever comments using that name. He is not trying to practice deceit (except inasmuch that he is hiding his real identity from someone).

I do, however, have a problem with those that assume or adopt multiple identities in order to try and create an advantage in debate usually by creating a character that can then be ridiculed by the creator to enhance their own debating position. This is exactly what Kissane tried to do. Ramsey is trying the same.

As far as Webdiary is concerned people will make their own judgements about its credibility or that of Margo Kingston’s. Kingston’s own credibility as far as I’m concerned is already shot. It went down the tube for two reasons; first she banned debate on some of the most important issues of our time purely to placate right-wing Webdiarists and secondly, she caved in to death threats.

Hamish Alcorn has no cred either; he’s just a spoilt brat pseudo riding on the back of Kingston’s fame and who was a party to his sister’s decision to ban discussion on 9/11. He was also a party to caving into death threats toward his sister. That’s no way to run a blog that claims to be ‘Independent, ethical, accountable and transparent’. Alcorn and Kingston have failed miserably on all counts and it is only the likes of Reynolds, Tonkin, et al, that are keeping it afloat. Get rid of Kingston as dictator of what can and cannot be discussed and the influence of her dummy-spitting brother and you might end up with a half reasonable forum that can discuss anything – even if it is the Matildas.

Anonymous said...

Sure, Damian, you have a right to your opinion on Kingston and Alcorn, but I don't concur. The deficiencies you identify in their oversight of Webdiary are, in my view, entirely understandable given the political climate and its implications for their grand aim of wanting to bring people together in a mainstream forum. My only criticism is about their naivety in supposing that certain folks actually want that to happen.

I note your criticism that they've shut down debate on what you called "the most important issues of our time", i.e., the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. Again, there are obvious political aspects to that decision. Personally I've not seen anything that would give the 'false flag' theory any legs, and your sound byte about "I don't know what happened that day, but I do know what didn't happen" is not particularly compelling, especially given your obvious biases.

You know it's easy for you because your only responsibility is to yourself and the truth as you see it. The result is a blog with, admittedly, a staggering amount of hits, but from whom?

Damian Lataan said...

Jacob, whether or not you personally find any 'theories' compelling is entirely up to you. I don't find the governments theory compelling and nor do a growing number of other people. 'Biases', mine or anyone elses, have nothing to do with anything; I'm simply looking at the facts. I'm not interested in the propaganda and rhetoric. Perhaps it is your own 'biases' that won't allow you to find other ideas 'compelling'.

Anonymous said...

I've thought of that, Damian, but another possibility is that 'biases', mine or anyone elses, have nothing to do with anything.

Damian Lataan said...

That's what I said.

Bias has no place in the objective accounting of history. Propaganda and rhetoric is the province of politicians while consideration of the geo-political realities and the facts on the ground are the diet for historians - regardless of how unpalatable the truth ultimately turns out to be.

One doesn't stop digging simply because one is frightened of what one may find.

Anonymous said...

Alan Curran also uses the pseudonym L.Ferguson.

Anonymous said...

The person using both "Alan Curran" and "L.Ferguson" as pseudonyms on Margo Kingston's Webdiary even has his sockpuppets make supportive comments for each other. How sad is that?

Damian Lataan said...

Just goes to show how desperate the right-wing are. Lying and cheating seems to be a common characteristic among them.

Anonymous said...

Brave anonymous!

You of course have proof that Curran and Ferguson are one and the same?

You gutless wonders who make accusations, safe in your anonymity make me want to puke!

Right wing, left wing, or broken wing!

Put up or shut up!

Damian Lataan said...

Kathy, I don't know what evidence Anonymous has about Curran and Furguson being one and the same but I have had my own suspicions for some time. The syntax used is identical; even the way certain words are used and even the punctuation used are identical.

And, of course, we all know about the propensity for many right-wingers to lie and cheat in the bogosphere!

Anonymous said...

Kathy [Farrelly] said...
Brave anonymous!

Just as brave as you are Kathy with your use of a set of silly pseudonyms to play the 'troll' on Phil Kendall's blog.

Anonymous said...

You silly fool anonymous!

Those pseudonyms were names used by Daniel Smythe and Phil Kendall (in previous posts) in reference to myself.

I was not in fact anonymous as both Phil and Daniel knew it was me.(and said as much)Nor was it my intention to be so!

I made no attempt to hide my identity.

It was all a joke to me.

Any fool could see that!

Apparently, not you however, anonymous gutless wonder! Ha!