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.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008


It seems that the once popular Australian current affairs blog ‘Webdiary’ has been taken over by a character now calling himself ‘Eliot Ramsey’ whose sleazy patronising comments appears to dominate in virtually every thread of the Webdiary blog. The resultant is that other Webdiarists, incensed by his blatant and extreme right-wing views, feel obliged to construct their arguments to revolve around his viewpoint thus denying Webdiarists an opportunity to discuss and debate the problems that beset the world without interference from this fraudulent propagandist whose sole purpose it seems is not to debate but to disrupt.

Around the middle of last year ‘Eliot Ramsey’s’ alter-ego, ‘C. Parsons’, was banned from further commenting at Webdiary. Almost instantly ‘Elliot Ramsey’ appeared on the Webdiary scene posing as a new Webdiarist who had just stumbled upon the blog and wanted to join in the commenting. It soon became clear that Eliot Ramsey was simply C. Parsons trying it on under a different name. When challenged by Kingston, Ramsey at first pleaded ignorance saying he hadn’t heard of C. Parsons – ‘how could I’ he said, ‘I’ve only just arrived at Webdiary’ was more or less his response. A little later, under pressure from other Webdiarists, Ramsey was pressed further by Kingston who asked him straight out ‘are you C. Parsons or not?’ Ramsey, of course, denied he was.

Kingston then decided to take this lying fraudster at his word allowing him to continue commenting at Webdiary despite having banned at least one other commentator that had been discovered with dual identity. A person close to Kingston later inferred that, since Ramsey had denied he was C. Parsons, Kingston was under some sort of legal obligation to let Ramsey continue commenting. This, of course, is utter nonsense. Kinston has no legal obligation to publish anyone’s comments.

Kingston has made it very clear in the past that the right-wing commentators at Webdiary are important to her. When she left Fairfax to start up Webdiary she had envisioned some sort of commercial enterprise that may make her a reasonable income to partly make up for her loss of income from Fairfax. She said then that she was pleased that the right-wing commentators that had been with her at SMH Webdiary had followed her over to her new project. So important to her were the right-wing commentators that when debate and discussion turned to subjects that the right-wing didn’t like and threatened to leave Webdiary, Kingston banned discussion on those subjects with her brother Hamish Alcorn going so far as to say ‘powerful’ right-wing forces had even made death threats to Kinston if she allowed these subjects to be discussed.

As we know, Kingston caved in. Discussion on the events of 9/11 became out of bounds for Webdiary as did most subjects that in any way could be construed as being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.

Now Webdiary has become a blog for Elliot Ramsey’s sleazy cynicism, rants and tirades. All discussion now revolves around what Ramsey has to say and Ramsey, it seems, has an awful lot to say. By responding negatively to every issue, he dominates discussion forcing Webdiarists to respond in turn to his negativity rather than taking the debate forward. The quicker Webdiary gets rid of this fraudster the sooner many of the other serious contributors who have told me personally that they have been turned off by Ramsey’s presence at Webdiary will return for some serious debate on the important issues of our era.


Anonymous said...

Hi Damian, long time.

My recollection is that CP just kinda disappeared from the Webdiary scene. I don't remember him/her/it being banned. Do you have a reference for this event?

You say "A person close to Kingston later inferred that, since Ramsey had denied he was C. Parsons, Kingston was under some sort of legal obligation to let Ramsey continue commenting."

Now, although I agree the purported 'legal' compunction is bulldust, who was this "person close to Kingston" who made that assertion? Reference?

But I don't agree that ER "dominates" WD. Several personalities "dominate" WD, including him/her/itself, Bob Wall, Craig Rowley, and several others including WD 'insiders'.

Sure, ER is a prolific contributor, but I tend to regard he/she/it as more a kind of comic relief, albeit an occasionally informative and thought-provoking one. I think most other commenters have his/her/its measure, too.

Anyway, trust the weather has been conducive for flying in your part of the world.


Damian Lataan said...


You'll have to find your own 'reference for this event'. I really don't have time to chase things up for other people.

The 'person close to Kingston' wishes to remain anonymous.

How you percieve the fraudster Ramsey is entirely up to you. You may regard him as 'comic relief', others don't.

You confuse 'prolific' with 'dominate'; Bob Wall and Craig Rowley are prolific with clear argument and debate while Ramsey dominates with propaganda and rhetoric designed specifically to disrupt. As you know, I have no time for fraudsters and liars or those that support them.

The flying is always good at this time of year.

Friedham I. Whont said...

G'day Damian, by 'Jacob' I presume Jacob A. Stam:

a) C Parsons posted last on June 9, 2007 - 10:23am, never to reappear; the post was published the day after.

b) a scant 2 days later, Eliot Ramsey 'arrived,' posting on June 12, 2007 - 12:25pm.

c) IMHO, there is no doubt that CP=ER nor that

d) MK is CP/ER's 'sponsor,' in that it is she as the final authority who allows the CP/ER (s/he/it; no sex is known to me) construct to be published - this, despite numerous calls to honour WD's self-proclaimed 'ethics,' aka morality.

This (d) is my conclusion based on long observation; but get this:

«I'm Eliot
Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on July 16, 2007 - 11:52am.
Yes, I'm Eliot Ramsey. No, I'm not 'CP'.

What was so remarkable about CP?

Margo: Cool. That's it then. CP was remarkable for many reasons. I liked him. Some people thought he was a troll. He got under a lot of people's skins, that's for sure. And he was relentless.»

In other words, a declaration of love from MK to CP.


What's worse is that MK probably knew exactly who ER was, namely CP.

Double yuk!!

That MK, DR or WD as a whole is/are not aware of this wholly disgusting and fraudulent situation is also beyond doubt. The ethics of WD are on display, and IMHO are found wanting. I will not deign to comment on the ethics of Jacob A. Stam.


Once again, I agree with Damian; see here (composed before seeing this post of Damian's) and here (composed after) for some more of my work on this topic.

But stop press! Late breaking, occurred during composition of this comment:

«Contingent reinforcement
Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on February 11, 2008 - 4:47pm.
We moderators have been somewhat perplexed over the past few weeks, Eliot. Was your new year's resolution to be as nasty as possible to and/or about as many people as possible? Or has it merely been a prolonged bilious attack?

Whichever, we have come to the conclusion that you should indeed "rest your case" for a few weeks, in the hope that at least a partial cure may be effected.

This is an action that we take with some regret, as you are capable of informed and intelligent comment that contributes to the many discussions that Webdiary tries to encourage. However, your usual pattern of "remorseless ridicule" is both offensive and tedious.

See you on St Patrick's Day.»

[I would comment: See you? Perhaps...]

But further, "remorseless" is a bit too close to "relentless," no? Remorseless ridicule, I seem to recall, was one'a the hallmarks of CP... QED.


This may be the 'break' WD so desperately needs.


Comment: I don't really give a flying f**k about who's up who and for what rent: the important thing is content, and the truth (or otherwise) of that content. CP/ER is a troll and as such is running a (-ve) agenda; any defender of trolls takes on the same -ve cast (listening, Jacob?) Actually, that's 'extending the benefit of the doubt,' which Stam neither needs nor wants. Sooo, I will run through the 'accessory' logic once again: defenders of (as apologists for) criminals - with the 'funny' exception of lawyers (and just how funny is that?) - make themselves accessories; equally guilty under law. Geddit?

Damian Lataan said...

G'day Phil

Good news about Ramsey being banned for a few weeks. Maybe some Webdiarists who have an interest in the way world is progressing will return to discuss some serious ideas on how to build a better world without being distracted by this fraudster.

Of course Kinston and Roffey know exactly who Ramsey is. The others at Webdiary also knew but were not prepared to do anything about. By their inaction they are all complicit in this fraud.

Friedham I. Whont said...

G'day Damian,

.. there's more still to this little 'kitchen drama;' rather than duplicate stuff, you could look here. The real question is what if all this effort from spinifex/C Parsons/Eliot Ramsey/Pauline P Kennedy could be directed towards a good cause, i.e. *against* the filthily mass-murdering criminal USrael m/i-plex?

Damian Lataan said..., now it's "Margo Kingston's 'Webdiary' morphs into the 'Pauline P. Kennedy' blog"??!!

Good one Phil. It won't be too long before the fraudster gives itself away with some kind of obvious syntax slip-up. And, of course, will we see the return of Ramsey after the ban expires? It'll also be interesting to see how Webdiary management handle it as well.

Damian Lataan said...

Quote from Pauline P. Kennedy
Webdiary 16 February 2008

"Important influences on Hitler's political outlook at the time included the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, and the equally anti-Semitic Austrian Pan German Party. But as Hamann points out, these forces were also quite influential in in the rural parts of Austria from where Hitler's family originated and their chief appeal would have been nationalistic.

Quote from Eliot Ramsey
Webdiary 21 November 2007

"Right from the outset Hitler stated his intention to employ the anti-Semitic demogoguery of movements such as Georg Schonnerer's Pan Deutsch party and Karl Leuger's Jew-baiting Christian Social Party for practical purposes, but to more intensively focus the former party's racist antipathy on the Jews (and less on Slavs and Catholics) for the purposes of rousing nationalistic fervour in Germans (and so as not to divide their energies); and Hitler expressly stated his intention to distance his own political stance from the "mistake" of Leuger's currying favour with the Catholic Church because greater Germany was mostly Protestant."

The similarities are emerging already.