4605Bob's Reply to Nick Fredman, 10 "Verbals" in 5 paragraphs
- Feb 17, 2004Sorry, 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
> into a form of high art by the DSP leadership, you here take somewords of
Why single out the DSP. Where is the evidence?
2. I'm rather sensitive to that kind of verballing, for the obvious
> 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 usuallyburied in a
> pile of other quotes consistent with the current politicalorientation 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
5. which is
> presented as if its some kind of discussion, but is actually asustained
> polemic for the Socialist Alliance project, and the SocialistAlliance
> 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
6. It starts with an elaborately argued version of the dubious
> DSP leadership proposition that the Australian ruling class arepreparing
> the masses for a Latham government, almost to the point whereWilliams seems
> to suggest that significant sections of the bourgeoisie regard aLatham
> 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.
> build the Socialist Alliance, particularly to replace the rottenLaborites.
Who says that? Who makes this the main task of SA? Nobody in the
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. KerrynWilliams' 'line
> ' article on the elections and Sue Bolton's 'line' article on theindustrial
> relations issue at the ALP conference, are not that kind ofdiscussion,
> 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 lastweek or so
> to GLW, and suggest that devote four pages of the paper to such anopen
> discussion. I'd be interested in a serious response from the GLWeditorial
> board to this proposal.Given the above: you wonder why GLW won't take you seriously?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>