Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4605Bob's Reply to Nick Fredman, 10 "Verbals" in 5 paragraphs

Expand Messages
  • br3068
    Feb 17, 2004
      Sorry, but I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read Bob Gould
      complaining of Nick Fredman allegedly "verballing" Michael Thompson.

      For someone who admits openly he only polemicises against
      caricatures of other's position rather than their actual content, it
      is no surprise that Bob goes on to present 10 of his own slanders/
      caricatures against the DSP (all in 5 paragraphs!):


      1. In the usual fashion, common on the far left, which has been
      turned
      > into a form of high art by the DSP leadership, you here take some
      words of

      Why single out the DSP. Where is the evidence?

      2. I'm rather sensitive to that kind of verballing, for the obvious
      reason that
      > DSP leadership polemicists do it constantly to me.

      Oh boo hoo. CONSTANTLY?



      3.If people who have a different strategic orientation to the DSP
      > are ever quoted, their quotes are carefully edited and usually
      buried in a
      > pile of other quotes consistent with the current political
      orientation of
      > the DSP leadership.

      Which quotes are carefully edited? Are the quotes from the trade
      unionists in the Bolton article manipulated? You're just upset
      because even what the left officials say is more critical of the ALP
      leadership than you are. Take it up with them.


      4. What popped out, however, once again, is a
      > rather exquisitely edited 'line' article by Kerryn Williams,

      Line article? In what sense is it a "line"? It is signed by
      Williams.

      5. which is
      > presented as if its some kind of discussion, but is actually a
      sustained
      > polemic for the Socialist Alliance project, and the Socialist
      Alliance
      > project alone.

      What exactly is this supposed to mean? It's no surprise Williams
      defends SA: GLW is a pro-SA paper. In what sense does the article
      deny though that others on the left will have their own and
      different tactics?


      6. It starts with an elaborately argued version of the dubious
      > DSP leadership proposition that the Australian ruling class are
      preparing
      > the masses for a Latham government, almost to the point where
      Williams seems
      > to suggest that significant sections of the bourgeoisie regard a
      Latham
      > government as desirable.

      What DSP leadership proposition? Blind Freddy could see the
      corporate media in particular is heavily promoting Latham. Even
      Howard complains about. CEOs I know have come to same conclusion.


      7. This kind of conspiracy theory is usually wrong.

      what conspiracy? If its a conspiracy then maybe the whole notion
      that the ruling class might even exist or may favour any party is
      one too. What is occurring is social process whereby sections the
      ruling-class are turning to the ALP.


      8.
      > build the Socialist Alliance, particularly to replace the rotten
      Laborites.

      Who says that? Who makes this the main task of SA? Nobody in the
      article.


      9. > That part of the resolution appears to allow for the
      possibility of the kind
      > of open discussion that I have been proposing to GLW. Kerryn
      Williams' 'line
      > ' article on the elections and Sue Bolton's 'line' article on the
      industrial
      > relations issue at the ALP conference, are not that kind of
      discussion,
      > though some attempt is made to suggest that they are. Once again,

      No Bob: they do quote a reasonable range of sources. It is just that
      everyone is more critical of the ALP than you are.



      10. I commend
      > the nine subjects for discussion that I've raised over the last
      week or so
      > to GLW, and suggest that devote four pages of the paper to such an
      open
      > discussion. I'd be interested in a serious response from the GLW
      editorial
      > board to this proposal.
      >


      Given the above: you wonder why GLW won't take you seriously?
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic