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.

Friday, April 04, 2008


Bob Wall, a veteran of popular Australian current affairs blog ‘Webdiary’, has been banned from posting and commenting at ‘Webdiary’ after years of being one of Margo Kingston’s strongest supporters because he has asked moderators and editors to hold true to their claims of being ‘Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent’, all values, it seems, that Webdiary dispensed with ages ago when it allowed right-wing liars and fraudsters with false identities and propagandising agendas to comment freely while stifling argument from the left.

Since Webdiary has seen fit not to allow Bob Wall to publicise his side of the story at 'Webdiary' after 'Webdiary' had published theirs, this blog gladly provides Bob Wall with a platform from which he can tell Webdiarists his side of the story and the truth about what is going on there.

WD Ban – some explanations.
Bob Wall

I will endeavour to clarify the circumstances of my 3 months ban from Webdiary. As you will see I was denied the opportunity of making my case to WD management and to answer the charges made against me. The latest version is in David Roffey’s Management Update where he has described a “series of acrimonious and threatening exchanges”. No evidence has been presented. The following is the situation from my side.

To quote David Roffey when he announced I had been banned from Webdiary:
“There have been a number of interactions with Bob over this thread, where he has made what the moderators feel to be unreasonable requests for the moderators to, essentially, weigh in on his side, with increasingly strident demands in emails etc.”
The request I was making was for fairness from the moderators in. There were posts published I considered to contain abuse, false accusations, baiting and such. I ignored most of this, particularly from Paul Morrella. When I did respond there was a marked double standard from the moderators. An example is that Ian MacDougall made the following comment:
"Otherwise one finishes up like friend Bob: unable to tell the difference between a neocon and a cow cocky."
When I used the term "cow cocky" to Ian, my post was not published.
Others who might have had posts that were not published might have been wondering why they were not considering some that were. In my case I believe I was not given equal rights as to responses which might be related to an email I received from Fiona Reynolds shortly after the thread was published and which included the following:
"Now, publication is conditional. As you are no doubt aware, this thread will generate a great deal of heat. You will not like some of the comments that will be posted. Neither will the moderators. However, there are other interpretations possible, and views that are genuinely held, even though you and others may regard them as distortions of the truth. Engage with the debate - but NOT by accusing other people of wilfully misreading, refusing to read, etc etc as you are inclined to do. And please don't bombard the moderators with NFPs complaining about liars and trolls. Otherwise the management (that means all of us) will seriously consider making the thread read-only."
Interpret that in light of what was published and, for those who had posts that did not appear, what was not. I also think that, if conditions were to be applied, they should been made known to me before the thread was opened, thus allowing me to consider the implications and to decide whether I wished to proceed under those conditions.
On Friday night I received an email from Fiona Reynolds which included:
You may remember that, with the agreement of all directors and moderators, publication of your Kandahar to Guantanamo thread was conditional – specifically, that if you "accus[ed] other people of wilfully misreading, refusing to read, etc., etc., as you are inclined to do" and/or if you "bombard[ed] the moderators with NFPs complaining about liars and trolls" that the thread would be made read-only.
Note my above point that I was not given the opportunity to agree to any conditions before publication. On Saturday morning I asked for evidence to support the charges:
"Please provide the evidence to support these accusations, i.e., examples on my thread where I accused people of wilfully misreading, refusing to read, etc., etc ...".
“Please provide copies of the NFPs where I complained about ‘liars and trolls’”.
I also asked:
“Are you prepared to make your charges and the evidence to support them and to allow me to challenge that evidence, online on WD?”
I received no answers. As I had received no answers to any NFPs or emails seeking clarification. As I recall there were two NFPs - and neither mentioned liars and trolls. No wonder Roffey on his aforementioned post referred to "emails, etc".
So what does this all mean? I sensed an attempt to either nobble me or to provoke me to an extent that I would give management a reason to ban me. Why? Perhaps there is an answer to be found in asking another question. One which I suggest other 'Diarists ask of management, which is;
Have representations been made to management from people who could be termed from the right, or more specifically, pro-Zionist? Have those representations been responded to?


Anonymous said...

"Have representations been made to management from people who could be termed from the right, or more specifically, pro-Zionist?"

What is the link between Zionism and Bob Wall's banning?

Damian Lataan said...

If you have to ask questions like that you shouldn't be asking the question! Wakey, wakey!!

Anonymous said...

I re-read the thread that prompted the ban and didn't find anything related to Zionism on it. I can understand the right-wing that Bob suggests is behind his banning but Zionists? Those two groups are not one and the same.

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, you say 'these two groups are not the same', but that's the point; they are. Dylan Kissane for example, apart from being a proven liar and a fraud is a well known Zioinist who has recently visited Israel and written of his support for Zionism. Craig Warton, another proven liar from the right-wing, who, though not a Zionist himself, strongly supports the Zionist cause. Same goes for one of the other frauds that seem to be made welcome at Webdiary that goes by the name of Paul Morrella.

Then, of course, there is the arch Zionist lunatic himself, Geoff Pahoff.

I have also on this blog written on a number of occasions of how Margo Kingston herself had caved in to Zionists specifically that have in the past threatened her if she continued to support anti-Zionist comments at Webdiary.

Anonymous said...

G'day Damian,

Well said about the people in question. And thanks for reminding us of the situation re Margo and threats. That is an important point to be made. Further, some time ago one of the WD moderators tried to undermine me in favour of one of the lying propagandists (or mouthpiece for the lobby, as I refer to him) whose lies I was in the process of exposing. Later the moderator in question called me to seek forgiveness. That person later also told me of the pressures on moderators - especially in re Israel/Palestine.

Anonymous, do not expect them to ne simply writing "We love Israel and it's crimes" but look at the nature of their posts and the relevance to the topic in question. You will see assorted attempts and derail discussion.

As I mentioned "Paul Morrella" in my piece, look at the nature of his posts since then, particularly in After the sickening slaughter .... The accusations, the lies etc. He does seem to be allowed a lot of leeway. People have left WD because of this.

As I said in my piece there questions that should be asked of management. They prefer not to be open and accountable but their readership has a right to expect them to honour their own proclaimed standards.

Friedham I. Whont said...

G'day Bob & Damian,

the situation is complex; I have tried to add some background & context, but that means a big post and rather than clutter up in here, I've posted my effort on my own blog, called "a conspiracy theory."

Anonymous said...

G'day Damian and Phil,

The time has come to give a little more material for people to consider in relation to the relationship between WD management and pro-Zionist elements. This concerns an exchange between known pro-Zionist Geoff Pahoff, whose MO includes lies and abuse - and worse, eh Phil? - and WD. It was in the form of a Not For Publication post submitted on my Gitmo thread.
The comments moderator Richard Tonkin added to the post header were first "Have emailed and then the final form as shown. Here it is:

NFP have emailed all's well Richard
Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on March 12, 2008 - 5:22am.

I guess Paul Morrella can thank you for speaking on his behalf...

Paul Morrella, you've been make clearly ridiculous comment after clearly ridiculous comment

Richard, what Paul is engaged in is making huge illogical leaps so that he can target 'diarists he doesn't like..

found Paul Morrella's Flares are Back to be one of the strangest and oddest comments I have seen all year.

Far more reasonable than Geoff Pahoff's attempt to terrorise us with his terrifying poll statistics (not that he shared any of them so they could be verified as terrifying). I guess Paul Morrella can thank you for speaking on his behalf, but then again maybe Geoff speaks for Paul now.

Indeed, Craig, I have also seen some dire statements from Allan Curran which made me think he was suggesting the genocide of the Palestinians by Israel. You might recall from material I have previously linked that some consider that it is already happening. That should please Allan.

And so on and so as Craig Rowley is yet again allowed to spiral out of orbit. I thoguht WD was trying to lift its tone by discouraging these incessant empty and often nasty little personal jibes ...? Or is that only if they come from the "right"?"

Some questions:

Why would Pahoff think WD was "trying to lift its tone"?

Why was WD management so concerned that Pahoff was answered and that all was well?

Friedham I. Whont said...

hardly notable quotables

 Subtitle: not too hard to find.


I looked for some descriptors associated with Pahoff (alphabetical):


Ooops! Does he bash his wife too?

(See how restrained I am? I didn't mention child-mind abusing.)

Then, I found some quotes (time order):

1. Pahoff.

  «WD has become just another hate site. I've tried to stick it out longer than others who have pointed this out, in the hope a crisis might make this place see sense.

You are a racist and a bigot Roslyn Ross. You shame Webdiary. And you reveal why Webdiary does not deserve to survive in its current form.»

[Posted by: Geoff Pahoff | Thursday, August 03, 2006 at 09:03]

2. Heidelberg.

  «Ah Jenny of that lovely new breed that inhabit Webdiary in recent times.
This blog is some kind of right wing hate site!!!
All of Webdiary's problems would be solved if only Harry was nicer.

Pig's arse. The whole thing died in the arse yonks ago and it continues to hobble along as a remnant joke.»

[Posted by: Harry Heidelberg | Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 05:46]

3. Pahoff, bis.

  «Notice the car parked outside last night? That knock on the door but nobody's there? That person staring at you down the shops the other day?

That'd be us, ... Yep. That's us. We know who you are. We know where you are. We know what you do.

Did you really expect it would be any other way?»

[Posted by: Geoff Pahoff | Friday, 06 April 2007 at 17:10]

Nice chaps, eh? (I 'threw' HH in just for good measure - but note the common theme: hate.)

In general, we of the (alleged) left do not hate people - but yeah, there are some hateful ones, some pug-ugly ones, and some of those combined - and much worse: murder/theft-type criminals), so if we hate at all, it's the acts that some people do. Like, say, the US illegally invading Iraq (now morphed into a 100+ yr brutal occupation), or the IDF (better IOF, O=Offence) 60+ yr now and ongoing slaughter of the prior legal owner/occupiers of (sadly mostly ex-) Palestine.

And the point here is, why does webdiary pander to such as Pahoff (and other sewer-mind types, they know exactly to whom I'm referring) - while at the same time banning honest types like Bob?

Anonymous said...

Why was WD management so concerned that Pahoff was answered and that all was well?

Is it because he issued some kind of threat?

Anonymous said...

HI Damian, Phil, Bob how lovely to see such an inspiring bunch all in one
It used to be Webdiary.

I cannot help feeling that WD has some influence upon it's eiodtorial policy regarding zionism/israel/worldinfluence/american control etc and even here at the top, even if it is only the wish not to attract the wrong sort of attention.

After all this is a funny time when hard drives get taken and tenure disappears and little is heard of ex-Presidents when they dance for unscripted drums.

Remember that nasty piece of works Moshe or something like that, sounded like some kind of Stormtrooper.And yes, Harry Heildelberg's (or Davis davies or whatever his real name is) site is a collection of the worst hatespeak since Timblair opened Neocon shop on the web. Strange as he himself seems to have a general good nature and character, but then, one must consider the company one keeps.Free speech is OK if it follows acceptable scripts, no matter how much hate there.

A site with those here, the quality of data, and Craig and Margo and richard and intellectual talents like Roslyn Ross could be so inspiring. Alas, Web diary had it all at one point.

For Margo's(and the others with values I respect) sake I still visit and support it in the hope that freedom and justice and honesty will win over in the end and in the knowledge that if all with such hopes leave then it never can.

I just think they do their best under the huge background pressure they have.

so long

(what the actress said to the Bishop)

Anni Mouse

Anonymous said...

G'day Anni,

Bishop to actress (sitting on an FKK-Strand[1]) "What's in it for me?"

Her answer: "Sand."


I just wrote some of the following text, before finding your comment:

I can't imagine WD being 'rescuable,' let alone some White Knight riding in. [Xxx] said: "Someone is paying them." I'd tend to agree, down to about 99%. It's either that, some silly, erroneous ideology (or the extreme outsider, MK's madness), but they can't be cuddling apologists, lying trolls & outright Zionists - all the while alienating/ejecting goodies 'just for fun.'


Speculation, yes, and possibly unkind. Some of us regard (the old) WD with affection, and are sad to watch its descent. Others want to get on with the job; the groups are not mutually exclusive.

[1] FKK-Strand: nudist beach.

Anonymous said...

G'day Anni, I agree with Phil that it is unlikely that WD can be saved. They have made choices that have lost them trust and respect, at least from myself and some others. It is extremely difficult to see how they can come back from that. Those values you respect seem to me, when they air them, nothing more than hypocrisy.

Pressures there are, how someone deals with them is the test and WD failed. Resisting them is a big ask but one that is required. That too many people cannot do so bodes ill for the future and meeting the challenges we face. Perhaps our epitaph will read "Flawed." (Note, I wrote "our".)

Anonymous said...

G'day Bob, Damian & Anni,

trying not to be repetitive - sometimes I think I live in a loop (Möbius even[1]); if we apply WYSIWYG (I do, I do!) - we can see WD seem to prefer quantity over quality, but not just that, they're at least doubly biased, 1) to the (criminal!) right and 2) towards some (undeserving!) in-group. (Boo! Hiss!)

Although some bias may be unavoidable, the right-bias inclines towards favouring an oil-theft denier incapable of backing up his/her/its denial, a jeering and jingoistic ridiculer and a Zionist thug. Each of these is not just tolerated but groomed, yuk! I agree with Bob, sheer hypocrisy.

Anni mentioned some denizens of HH/DD's spewing "the worst hatespeak since Timblair opened Neocon shop," we know that these hate-speakers were WD-refos who later returned to the fold (you'd have to ask why), but as each 'black sheep' returned, s/he/it was given a jolly hockey-sticks "Hail fellow well met." Yuk again!

Of course, any so-called balanced discussion may attract crooks from the 'dark side;' this would normally induce one to don a 'slime-suit' or some-such as required protection. But Oh no, WD management welcomes such lying trolls, propagandists, apologists and/or agitators with disgustingly (naked?!!) open arms. Another revolting and dangerous case of unsafe internet, equally as dangerous as unsafe sex, blogs or you can die from it.


[1] it gets better, a (left!) Listing Loop - with 'zero Gaussian curvature,' haw!

Damian Lataan said...

Hi everyone! I'm sorry I've been a little neglectful lately; work is getting the better of me timewise these last several weeks. I'll try to be more attentive but can only get to the computer in the evenings and weekends at the moment so please excuse me if it seems I'm not doing or saying much but do please feel free to continue discussion.

Anonymous said...

G'day Damian, Anni and Phil, things have livened up at WD with Fiona engaging Curran, Farrelly and Morrella. Better than nothing but I fear too late to undo the damage.

Curran's comment about Ernie Graham are "interesting":

I do believe that the "Ernest guy" was not a proper person, but just part of the huge Labor con-job.

That lack of a sense of irony again. Also, Curran operates under a nom and has a record of making accusations against other commenters. Unsubstantiated, as a rule. And runs away when asked for substantiation. There is this in the Ethics:

I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.

I have in the past reminded the Eds of this in re Curran but no action was ever taken. Oh, do recall the recent invoking of the Ethics and Guidelines in defence of CPER.
Nothing like consistency, and there is nothing like consistency in how WD management apply there own rules.

Now let us see how this develops - will WD allow the unconscionable behaviour from some to continue?

Over to you, Fiona.