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

Re: NSW Council election results (and Bob's geography)

Expand Messages
  • ozleft
    By Bob Gould Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a fabricator of lies . Wow. I don t much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a pseudonym
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      By Bob Gould

      Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow. I don't
      much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a
      pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member of the Sydney
      branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.

      As a matter of broad political policy, I don't lie about political
      events and matters of fact, or anything else for that matter. I
      sometimes get things wrong, but I don't lie. Nobby Tobby's weird,
      unpleasant and convoluted post confirms me in my view that I didn't
      get anything wrong about the sequence of events in the Sydney
      Socialist Alliance branch.

      In his very strange post, Nobby Tobby says a decision had been
      made "anonymously" to preference Clover Moore over the Laborites. It
      must have been very "anonymous", because my informants told me there
      was a meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance at which, in
      particular, two members of the ISO spoke strongly in favour of
      preferencing Labor over Clover Moore and that the understanding at
      the end of that meeting was that preferencing Labor was the position
      of the Sydney branch of the Alliance.

      My further understanding is that there was then a caucus of the ISO,
      at which the ISO leaders persuaded a majority to support preferencing
      Clover Moore. After that, one of the ISO people who originally
      support preferencing Labor, but not both, changed their position.

      Another meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance was then held,
      which decided to preference Clover Moore, with the ISO member who
      still favoured preferencing Labor, dissenting.

      The story gets even more complicated and obscure in this way: at the
      relatively successful antiwar rally two weeks ago, several leading
      members of the DSP said to me in private conversation that they
      opposed the decision to preference Moore.

      Even Peter Boyle, in discussion, said he had initially favoured
      preferencing Labor but the trajectory of movement now persuaded him
      the correct decision was to preference Moore.

      Nobby Tobby now says it was all unanimous (or "anonymous") all
      through, and he accuses me, in this spirit, of being a "fabricator of
      lies".

      Brother Nobby Tobby seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work,
      throwing around accusations of fabrication and lying far too easily.
      If he believes I got it wrong, the obvious way to make his case is to
      give a frank and honest account of the sequence of events and the
      alternative lines of argument in the Alliance, the DSP and the ISO.

      Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him to
      engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
      crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying. If I've
      got it so wrong, tell us the actual sequence of events that supports
      your argument, Nobby Tobby.
    • Ambrose Andrews
      ... So how is sheltering behind a pseudonym relevant? If you re not planning to sue your accusor, or engage in a duel at dawn, then it doesn t matter who it
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        ozleft wrote:

        >By Bob Gould
        >
        >Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow. I don't
        >much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a
        >pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member of the Sydney
        >branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.
        >
        >
        So how is 'sheltering behind a pseudonym' relevant? If you're not
        planning to sue your accusor, or engage in a duel at dawn, then it
        doesn't matter who it is, as long as its a consistent identity, which it
        is.

        You clearly do not enjoy being called a 'fabricator of lies'. Would it
        be more correct to say that you are not averse to making something up,
        if you don't know the real story?

        >Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him to
        >engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
        >crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying. If I've
        >got it so wrong, tell us the actual sequence of events that supports
        >your argument, Nobby Tobby.
        >
        >

        'If i've got it wrong'.... also known as 'if I've just *made something
        up*, for purposes of provocation, then the onus is on you to correct
        me,' (but calling me a liar is out of line).

        I can make whatever outlandish statements I like on the basis of nothing
        but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its an 'educated'
        guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me all the details
        of their internal discussions (can't imagine why...).

        -AA.


        --
        Ambrose Andrews
        LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
        http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
        +61-415544621
        CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
      • ozleft
        By Ed Lewis ... nothing but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its an educated guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me all the
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          By Ed Lewis

          Ambrose Andrews wrote:

          >>I can make whatever outlandish statements I like on the basis of
          nothing but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its
          an 'educated' guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me
          all the details of their internal discussions (can't imagine
          why...).>>

          The problem, for you Ambrose, is that Bob Gould's statements don't
          appear to be outlandish at all. In fact, his intelligence sources
          seem to be pretty good, including leading members of the DSP.

          There's no need for Mr Tobby, Peter Boyle or others to give "all the
          details", since they're pretty much out in the open in an
          organisation like the Socialist Alliance, despite Zinovievist
          attempts to keep it all under wraps.

          A question for Mr Tobby: how can a contested decision be "anonymous"
          (presumably you mean unanimous)?
        • Kim B
          Bob, Perhaps it time you got of your high horse and stop obsessing about the DSP and Socialist Alliance. Firstly, Nobby is his actual name - it is diminutive
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment

            Bob,

            Perhaps it time you got of your high horse and stop obsessing about the DSP and Socialist Alliance.

            Firstly, Nobby is his actual name - it is diminutive of his actual name and yes it the name everyone knows him by in both the DSP and Socialist Alliance but even if it wasn't so what? (I understand Ed Lewis is a non de plume for Stever Painter - if I am wrong then apologies to Steve and Ed,  but if it so what, who cares really, just as so what if someone wants to use a psuedonym when challenge Bob's version of the world). 

            Secondly, English is not Nobby's first language (and like many people who come from a NESB back ground, no matter how good their english is, they still sometimes get words mixed up). I am guessing he meant to say unanimously rather then anonymously.

            Thirdly, perhaps you should remember the old adage that "people in glass houses should not throw stones". You seem to delight in casting around names, half truths, unsubstantiated allegations and suppositions (in my previous life as an academic, if any of my students did this in an essay, I would have failed them outright!!!) but should anyone challenge you then suddenly you�re the wounded one. 

            If anyone is obsessed about an organisation, Bob it is you. You are obsessed about the DSP (and now by default the Socialist Alliance) and your obsessiveness is leading to you to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories to fit your agenda. According to a previous post, supposedly DSP and ISO leaderships pressured the comrades in the SA central branch into preferencing Clover Moore over Labor.

            Now if the ISO had a caucus of their own comrades to decide what position they wanted to take into the meeting, well then that is entirely their right. However, this does not mean that they somehow pressured non-aligned comrades into voting for Clover Moore, all it means is that they simply put their position up for discussion in the branch meeting, where it would have been discussed and then democratically voted on.

            I also find it the height of pure arrogance that you feel that some how you can place demands on both the DSP and the SA about our internal discussion and somehow we should all jump to attention and do what you demand.   I have no problem with us discussing you theory about zinovisim and other such stuff but to demand that a SA branch lay out its inner workings regarding a discussion which took place democratically in a branch meeting and which was democratically voted on its beyond the pale.

            You demand that a public debate take place about a democratic discussion and vote in a particular branch, but Bob, I am yet to see or hear you make the same demands about your own party, the ALP. I am yet to see you demand that the ALP and its membership have a public debate on their rotten sectarian and opportunist position to preference the Liberals in Leichhardt

            Now, perhaps when you jump up and down about numerous betrayals of class by your supposed working class party, the ALP, in the same manner you jump and down about anything the SA or DSP does that does not fit with you little schemas, then perhaps members of the DSP and SA might feel compelled to answer your every demand, but until that happens, why the hell should we?

            The long and short of it, however, Bob, is I do not ever recall voting in a DSP meeting or a SA meeting on a motion that says we have to either run everything we do past you or that we are ulitmately answerable to you. Until we do, I feel absolutely under no obligation to answer to you, as I am sure is the case with many of our other members of the DSP or the SA.

            Secondly, the reason, why most comrades can not be bothered having a debate with you has nothing to do with supposed authoritarianism, its because they are either to busy and judge that they have better things to do with their time and/or just can�t plain be bothered answering windbaggery every two minutes. 

            I could say more, but I have already wasted 20 minutes of my time which I will never get back but Bob, humility is a great thing and perhaps you should actually learn some occassionally and accept that you are not god, you are not always right and that we all do not have to answer to you.

            Kim


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
          • kieran latty
            To start with, i am a bit pissed off at the nature of this exchange. As Bob often does, he has taken a few anecdotes and extrapolated way too far. And as
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              To start with, i am a bit pissed off at the nature of
              this exchange.

              As Bob often does, he has taken a few anecdotes and
              extrapolated way too far.

              And as usual, certain people reply to what I see as
              Bob's timeless application of somewhat sound theory (i
              obviosly disagree with much, but not all, of what he
              say;s) with equally timeless and sectarian
              denunciations of labor.

              Am I wrong in thinking no one is really engaging with
              the theoretical questions at hand ?

              First to clear up a few facts.

              I was initially against the preferencing of Moore over
              Lees.

              The reasons for this initial position was based on our
              future audience. People who vote Labor or who are in
              the party are more likely to end up in the Socialist
              Alliance than those in Moore's camp.

              This still, in my mind, was a very good reason for
              considering the preference in Lees.

              On the other hand, it could be argued that the key
              campaigns we were involved in had better chance of
              getting a reception under a Moore mayoralship.

              It could also be argued that the ALP needed to be
              punished for its recent shenanigans.

              Furthermore, whilst Moore was set to get a better vote
              in richer areas, there was a degree of anecdotal
              evidence that she would pick up significant votes in
              depressed areas on a left wing basis.

              For example, while leafleting in redfern a group of
              older pensioners in the large public housing estates
              all said that they were voting for Moore because she
              listened to them and because she would defend public
              housing from the developers.

              Now, the ALP did do better than Moore in these areas,
              but even in south redfern and Waterloo Moore got alot
              of votes- near or over 35% of the primary vote (more
              than the 25% that Bob thought she would get).

              Clearly, the decision was not an easy one to make.
              Those who seem to fall too easily on one side seem to
              me to be not engaging with the issues.

              Anyway, back to the facts.

              The first meeting of the Alliance to decide on the
              topic voted overwhelmingly to preference Moore.

              I argued against this proposal, arguing for an SA,
              Greens, then ALP preference run.

              The meeting did, however, empower the branch executive
              to be able to revisit the question on the grounds of
              new evidence- for example, if we found out that Moore
              had some anti-union plan up her sleeve.

              After the meeting, i discussed the issue with a number
              of people, including in the DSP.

              At this stage, I was still very hard in favour of the
              ALP ocer Moore.

              By the time of the next executive meeting, some people
              had swung closer to my position.

              We discussed the issues, amd decided to get more
              evidence about Moore. To this end Susan Price
              contacted Moore and the ASU to discuss the issues.

              As the issue was now quite a contentious one, and as a
              member of the ISO, I raised this issue with other
              members of the Newtown branch of the ISO, to try and
              get a better feel for the issue. I have also talked to
              people in the ALP and even Jack Mundey about the issue
              (who is hard in favour of Moore.)

              At that meeting of the ISO, there was a strong view in
              favour of preferencing Moore over the ALP.

              I am a comitted member of the ISO, and respect other
              members ideas and views. By the end of that meeting, i
              still thought we needed better discussion, and was not
              clear either way- however, i was not going to advocate
              a position which was contrary to the ISO caucus.

              At the next Alliance meeting, we discussed the issue,
              where most people advocated preferencing Moore.

              This was on the basis of evidence that Moore had
              supported unions against Carr's attack on workers
              compensation, was against contracting out services and
              supported the last teachers pay claim.

              One ISO member, who was not at the previouse ISO
              meeting, strongly opposed the majority decision.

              I abstained, as i felt the ISO needed to have a better
              discussion of the issue before we made a formal
              decision.

              I stand by the Alliance's decision. Some time down the
              track we may think it was the wrong thing to do,
              maybey not- but we were operating on a limited time
              frame and had to make a decision.

              I do think we need to discuss this issue further, but
              to be honest, the current debate has been
              characterised by too much misinformation, too many
              attempts to create scandals and too much defenciveness
              and fire.

              So Bob, argue your case, but give up on trying to look
              for "Zinoviest conspiracies"

              And everyone else, give up the timeless "denounce the
              ALP" and engage with the issues.

              Lastly, to put my case on class- I think it is still
              right to see the ALP as a capitalist workers party-

              By this, I mean that it attempts to make workers lives
              a little better under capitalism, and to this end
              supports capitalism.

              But it is also a party of the class, in that most
              workers still vote ALP.

              If we want to build a party of socialist workers, the
              socialists (i.e. us) need to be in some way with those
              workers in order to relate to them.

              Not tailing them, but also not a million miles away
              from them either.

              So when the workers cheer Latham's victory, we cheer
              to, but we also need to criticise the ALP and point to
              a better alternative.

              Now, with this theory, we should be looking at how
              workers, particularily the most advanced sections,
              view Moore's victory.

              If they think it is a step backwards, then maybe we
              did do the wrong thing.

              The proof will really be in the pudding though.

              After a full term of Moore's mayoralship, lets see
              what she has done and how those same workers view her.

              Comradely, Kieran Latty.






































































              ___________________________________________________________
              WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
            • kieran latty
              Have a read of this on how to relate to the mainstream left. Comment Don t duck the politics Alex Callinicos draws lessons from the far left s performance in
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Have a read of this on how to relate to the mainstream
                left.

                Comment

                Don't duck the politics

                Alex Callinicos draws lessons from the far left's
                performance in France's regional elections

                THE HEADLINE news in France's regional elections was
                that there was a big swing away from the ruling right
                to the parties of the "plural left"-the Socialists,
                Communists, and Greens. But, for the revolutionary
                left, the story was a different one.

                The coalition of Lutte Ouvriere (LO) and the Ligue
                Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR) won 4.95 percent of
                the vote in the first round of the elections the
                weekend before last. This was too low a vote for the
                slate to go into the second round last Sunday. It's
                important to get this in proportion. As a share of the
                national vote, 5 percent isn't bad for open
                revolutionaries.

                But two years ago, in the first round of the last
                presidential elections, the far left candidates won 10
                percent. Arlette Laguiller of LO and Olivier
                Besancenot of the LCR each won a higher share of the
                vote than the candidate of the Communist Party (PCF).

                This was a historic result given how the PCF has
                dominated the organised working class in France since
                the 1930s. This time, however, the PCF won 7.6 percent
                of the vote. Yet France last May and June was swept by
                a massive strike wave against the government's attack
                on pensions. LCR and LO militants played a leading
                role in the strikes.

                The reformist left seems to be benefiting from popular
                bitterness against the right. Of course, parliamentary
                elections aren't revolutionaries' natural terrain.
                Activists can lead mass movements but find themselves
                cut down to size on polling day.

                Moreover, in April 2002 the official left were in
                government, implementing neo-liberal policies. The far
                left-and the Nazi National Front-were able to give a
                voice to the resulting disillusionment. But, once out
                of office, the Socialist Party and the PCF have been
                able to rebuild a degree of credibility. There is an
                important lesson here.

                LO and, to a lesser extent, the LCR tend to portray
                the official left as no different from the right. They
                did not call on their voters to switch to the
                Socialists and Communists in the second round of the
                elections. This stance reflects a failure to recognise
                the enduring hold of reformism on the workers'
                movement.

                Even a party as corrupt and discredited as the French
                Socialists can, by tacking left rhetorically, act as a
                vehicle for working class discontent. By putting the
                parties of the plural left in the same bag as the
                ruling right, LO and the LCR may have isolated
                themselves from voters traditionally loyal to the
                Communists or Socialists. Moreover, the far left
                campaign focused almost exclusively on economic issues
                and more particularly the high level of unemployment.
                Of course, unemployment is hugely important, but
                revolutionary candidates have to address political
                questions as well.

                Opposition to corporate globalisation, imperialism,
                and war brought huge numbers of young people to the
                anti-capitalist festival at Larzac last August and the
                European Social Forum in Paris in November. There are
                also less positive issues.

                President Jacques Chirac and his prime minister,
                Jean-Pierre Raffarin, drove through, with the support
                of the plural left, the notorious law banning Muslim
                young women from wearing headscarves in state schools.
                Seethes Scandalously, LO has supported expelling
                Muslim school students for wearing headscarves. The
                LCR is split.

                Chirac has used the issue to divide the far left and
                push them onto the defensive. As a result, they have
                cut themselves off from the largest Muslim population
                in Europe, which seethes with anger over official
                racism and the "war on terrorism".

                I don't make these criticisms with any enthusiasm, for
                two reasons. First, some of them are also being made
                by a right wing minority within the LCR. They oppose
                building a revolutionary alternative to the official
                left. Instead of a slate with LO, this minority wanted
                to cosy up with fragments of the reformist parties.

                Even before the first round had taken place, they
                started a media campaign calling on the LCR to support
                the plural left in the second round. There is a real
                danger that the Ligue will now implode into
                faction-fighting. Secondly, I can't avoid a feeling of
                "There but for the grace of god go us." In June
                Respect will face its own great test in the European
                and Greater London elections.

                But to succeed we need to learn from others'
                successes-and failures. The main morals I draw from
                the French regional elections are not to underestimate
                reformism and not to duck the great political
                questions of the day.

                * Alex Callinicos is the author of The New Mandarins
                of American Power (£13.99) and The Revolutionary Ideas
                of Karl Marx





































                ___________________________________________________________
                WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the
                Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
                www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes


                Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                Terms of Service.






                ___________________________________________________________
                WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
              • ozleft
                By Ed Lewis Kim Bullimore may be correct -- or not -- about my name. She is correct that Ed Lewis is a pseudonym. I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  By Ed Lewis

                  Kim Bullimore may be correct -- or not -- about my name. She is
                  correct that Ed Lewis is a pseudonym.

                  I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the private sector. I'd
                  prefer that my real name not be picked up by my employer, or possible
                  future employers, in a Google search. This may not be such a problem
                  for people working in universities or the public service, but I don't
                  work there.

                  Who I am is no mystery to many members of this list, nor is it
                  intended to be.

                  This is not the first time I've been outed on this list. As far as I
                  can remember, no members of the DSP have been treated in this way.
                  Could that be because non-DSP participants in this list are a bit
                  more principled, sensible and respectful about their methods of
                  argument?

                  I'd appreciate it if you and others would respect my right to use a
                  pseudonym, Kim.
                • Gould's Book Arcade
                  Thanks Kieran, for clearing the air a bit, by attempting to give a more or less comprehensive account of the sequence of events in the Sydney Branch of the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks Kieran, for clearing the air a bit, by attempting to give a more or
                    less comprehensive account of the sequence of events in the Sydney Branch of
                    the Socialist Alliance. I accept your account of events, and will correct
                    any future comment I make on this issue accordingly, using your account of
                    the events as the definitive one in the absence of anyone else's account of
                    the events being as complete and comprehensive as your own. Quite obviously
                    Nobby's account is completely incorrect, by way of omission.

                    I'd still make the following couple of points. Jack Mundey is a courageous
                    fighter on pretty well all class questions and also on many environmental
                    matters. His opinions, however, on such matters as preferencing Moore,
                    however, shouldn't be taken as the last word. Over a very long period of
                    time, Jack has had a very soft spot for Clover Moore, based on common
                    environmental interests, and he doesn't give as much weight as I would, to
                    the very concrete fact that she kept the Greiner Government in power for a
                    number of years with her vote. On the question of outsourcing, Moore has
                    refused to make any direct statement against outsourcing. You say that
                    someone consulted the ASU, but you didn't tell us what response they got
                    from the ASU (MEU). All officials I have spoken to from the ASU (MEU) were
                    strongly in favor of preferencing Lee over Moore, because of Moore's refusal
                    to be explicit about the outsourcing issue.

                    When I spoke to DSP members and leaders at the antiwar demonstration two
                    weeks ago, they were very anxious to point the bone at the ISO as the source
                    of preferencing Clover Moore, and several significant DSPers said to me and
                    others privately that they were opposed to preferencing Moore over Lee,
                    which is why I raise the question of what I call Zinovievism. There is
                    obviously, from your account of events, argument in both the DSP and the ISO
                    on the question. But both groups are obviously bound, in reality, in the
                    Socialist Alliance by the decision made by the leadership of the groups.
                    This gives the decision to preference Clover Moore unstoppable weight inside
                    the Socialist Alliance once the leadership of each group has pronounced in
                    favor. This situation seems to me an almost classic example of Zinovievist
                    arrangements in small socialist groups.


                    Gould's Book Arcade
                    32 King St, Newtown, NSW
                    Ph: 9519-8947
                    Fax: 9550-5924
                    Email: bob@...
                    Web: www.gouldsbooks.com.au
                  • Ambrose Andrews
                    ... Thats quite reasonable. Under most circumstances, I am not in favour of outing list members. (including current circumstances). It is an issue of
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ozleft [Ed Lewis] wrote:

                      >I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the private sector. I'd
                      >prefer that my real name not be picked up by my employer, or possible
                      >future employers, in a Google search. This may not be such a problem
                      >for people working in universities or the public service, but I don't
                      >work there.
                      >
                      >
                      Thats quite reasonable. Under most circumstances, I am not in favour of
                      'outing' list members. (including current circumstances). It is an
                      issue of democratic rights, as Ed has pointed out. It's also an issue
                      of a mode of discussion. If someone on the list exhibits lunacy in their
                      arguments, then that will become obvious to list members over a period
                      of time, whether or not the person in question has a prior history of
                      lunacy in another context.

                      It also tends to distract from the actual debate. Bob (why am i always
                      going on about Bob?) can hardly resist putting a little potted bio, or
                      speculative comment about a list contributor before addressing their
                      comments, such as his odd characterisation of Carl Kenner as a 'DSP
                      supporter' on an occasion when it suited him. I mean it's not a big
                      deal, and its a matter of style, but it can be used to muddy the waters.

                      >This is not the first time I've been outed on this list. As far as I
                      >can remember, no members of the DSP have been treated in this way.
                      >Could that be because non-DSP participants in this list are a bit
                      >more principled, sensible and respectful about their methods of
                      >argument?
                      >
                      >
                      I think this is a strange argument.

                      Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being Peter
                      Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't technically
                      'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It was one of
                      Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.

                      In my view this 'principled, sensible and respectful' behaviour from a
                      non-DSP member doesn't accord with your musings.

                      Blanket characterisations of DSP members and non-DSP members as the two
                      fundamental categories of matter are unlikely to hold up against reality.

                      But yes, I agree with Ed apart from this little twist at the end.

                      -AA.

                      --
                      Ambrose Andrews
                      LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                      http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                      +61-415544621
                      CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
                    • ozleft
                      By Bob Gould ... Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn t technically outing because it wasn t correct... it wasn t true. It was one of
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        By Bob Gould

                        Ambrose Andrews wrote:

                        >>Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being
                        Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't
                        technically 'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It
                        was one of Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.>>

                        Ambrose Andrews alleges that I outed Chris Kerr on this list. As
                        comrade Ambrose ought to know, that's just not true. I've never outed
                        anyone on any list.

                        I did ask some pointed questions about whether Dennis Berrell and
                        Michael Berrell were the same person, but I gathered that one of
                        those identities was the man's real name. Dennis Michael Berrell
                        clarified that to my satisfaction. It's hardly outing anyone to try
                        to keep track of their real name or dual personalities.

                        I didn't out Chris Kerr either. I genuinely thought, on the basis of
                        stylistic similarities in the rather lame satire used by Kerrvert and
                        Peter Boyle that Kerrvert was a pseudonym for Peter Boyle.

                        As a result of this confusion on my part, one of Chris Kerr's fellow
                        DSP members outed him, and I can hardly be blamed for that.

                        I've never outed anyone, I've just commented wryly a few times on the
                        barbed way people hiding behind pseudonyms have put the boot into me,
                        which is a reasonable response.

                        I hope Ambrose Andrews will withdraw the claim that I outed Chris
                        Kerr.
                      • nobbytob
                        ... my apologies, bob, i didn t know that you have that bad sources of information, resp. that lack of ability to put your pieces together. so liar was a
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
                          wrote:

                          > Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow.
                          > I don't much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters
                          > behind a pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member
                          > of the Sydney branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.

                          my apologies, bob, i didn't know that you have that bad sources
                          of information, resp. that lack of ability to put your pieces
                          together. so "liar" was a tiny little bit too much accusation.
                          as for the allged "pseudonym" - no it isn't, but for reasons
                          similar though different to ed lewis' i prefer to be just Nobby.


                          > Nobby Tobby's weird, unpleasant and convoluted post confirms
                          > me in my view that I didn't get anything wrong about the
                          > sequence of events in the Sydney Socialist Alliance branch.

                          and in a later post you wrote

                          > Quite obviously Nobby's account is completely incorrect,
                          > by way of omission.

                          sigh... well, now that kieran "outed" himself - that's why it
                          was only ALMOST unanimous (and not anymous - although i made
                          jokes about others making this error, these two words are
                          phetically much too similar to not type in the wrong one, and
                          typing is something that you do without much concentration...).
                          (why do others conclude straight away, that i meant unanimous,
                          but not you, bob? i though you have an army of "informants" on
                          the ground ;-)
                          [note: they are just informants for you, not comrades?]


                          > there was a meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance at
                          > which, in particular, two members of the ISO spoke strongly
                          > in favour of preferencing Labor over Clover Moore

                          no. just one.


                          > and that the understanding at the end of that meeting was that
                          > preferencing Labor was the position of the Sydney branch of the
                          > Alliance.

                          so does your ALP branch discussions end with "understandings"?
                          we take votes - or at least straw polls. but then, democracy is
                          not one of your strengths...

                          AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ONE. i told you so, a vote was
                          taken, and it was almost unanimously against the ALP machine,
                          reflecting the discussion.


                          > My further understanding is that there was then a caucus of the
                          > ISO, at which the ISO leaders persuaded a majority to support
                          > preferencing Clover Moore.

                          so what does an ISO meeting have to do with the SA branch?
                          is this ISO meeting, of which you seem to have quite much
                          information about, your only proof of leadership pressure
                          to change <whose?> opinions in favour of clover moore, which
                          is where the opinions have been anyway?


                          > Another meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance was then held,
                          > which decided to preference Clover Moore, with the ISO member who
                          > still favoured preferencing Labor, dissenting.

                          not "still" - it was (from the accounts of this list) obviously
                          her first meeting and discussion on this question. you are wrong
                          in almost every sentence of your account, bob, i hope you realise
                          that. did you say earlier on "completely incorrect" to my account?
                          well, i tell you: i was dead right, as i do check my facts before
                          posting them, and also, i was right in the heart of that decision-
                          making process, unlike you!


                          > Nobby Tobby now says it was all unanimous (or "anonymous") all
                          > through, and he accuses me, in this spirit, of being a "fabricator
                          > of lies".

                          well, despite my apologies above, i have to flip back: you ARE
                          quite obviously a B.liar: "unanimous (or "anonymous") all through"?
                          well, (1) so you did realise that i meant unanimous - now, i even
                          call you dishonest! and (2) i clearly said ALMOST unanimous, so
                          how comes you conclude "all through"? BOB, this is the way your
                          argumentations work: always deviate a little bit from the truth
                          to serve you own political interest and die-hard positions - and
                          that for decades...


                          > Brother Nobby Tobby seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work,

                          thanks for that - doesn't bother me, if it comes from you.
                          i'm not your brother, i am a rank & file socialist, and you are
                          just a piece in the ALP machine, self-assigend to keep the left
                          flank (the real socialists) busy with your rantings...
                          not with me bob, my aim with this is, to once (and for all, when
                          it comes to me) reveal your methods, and i WILL leave you alone
                          with that. there's work to be done out there, in the real world.
                          as others have mentioned before: people prefer to not waste their
                          time with your crude pieces of mail.


                          > throwing around accusations of fabrication and lying far too
                          > easily.

                          alright, this time i spent more time - read: made it harder for
                          me - before reconfirming my analysis.


                          > If he believes I got it wrong, the obvious way to make his case is
                          to
                          > give a frank and honest account of the sequence of events and the
                          > alternative lines of argument in the Alliance, the DSP and the ISO.

                          can't be bothered. (1) you got the accounts, and (2) i am not
                          answerable to someone who is hostile to hard-working socialists.
                          ha! are you seriously demanding all the lines of argument in all
                          those 3 organisations? i am not even a member of ALL of them...
                          well, you will even get another one, and you can read it even
                          online later on - let's see if you know, where you can find the
                          appropriate source. a hint: it's part of SA's open democracy.


                          > Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him
                          > to engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
                          > crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying.

                          dead wrong again here, though not with the latter 3 words.


                          > But both groups are obviously bound, in reality, in the Socialist
                          > Alliance by the decision made by the leadership of the groups.

                          ??? WE are the Sydney Central branch of SA, and WE are the ones,
                          who analyse and discuss our local politics. this again is a classic
                          example of - you guessed it - DEMOCRACY!
                          and hard to comprehend for you, i know...

                          Nobby.
                        • Ambrose Andrews
                          ... Very good. I absolve you. ... Indeed. This genuine belief turned out to have been a mistaken genuine belief. ... I don t think saying Chris Kerr is a
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ozleft wrote:

                            > By Bob Gould
                            >
                            > Ambrose Andrews wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >>> Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being
                            >>
                            > Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't technically
                            > 'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It was one of
                            > Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.>>
                            >
                            > Ambrose Andrews alleges that I outed Chris Kerr on this list. As
                            > comrade Ambrose ought to know, that's just not true. I've never outed
                            > anyone on any list.
                            >
                            > I did ask some pointed questions about whether Dennis Berrell and
                            > Michael Berrell were the same person, but I gathered that one of those
                            > identities was the man's real name. Dennis Michael Berrell clarified
                            > that to my satisfaction. It's hardly outing anyone to try to keep
                            > track of their real name or dual personalities.
                            >
                            >
                            Very good. I absolve you.

                            > I didn't out Chris Kerr either. I genuinely thought, on the basis of
                            > stylistic similarities in the rather lame satire used by Kerrvert and
                            > Peter Boyle that Kerrvert was a pseudonym for Peter Boyle.
                            >
                            >
                            Indeed. This genuine belief turned out to have been a mistaken genuine
                            belief.

                            > As a result of this confusion on my part, one of Chris Kerr's fellow
                            > DSP members outed him, and I can hardly be blamed for that.
                            >
                            >
                            I don't think saying 'Chris Kerr is a real person' qualifies as outing.
                            Possibly inning.

                            > I've never outed anyone, I've just commented wryly a few times on the
                            > barbed way people hiding behind pseudonyms have put the boot into me,
                            > which is a reasonable response.
                            >
                            >
                            Nobby is not a pseudonym.

                            > I hope Ambrose Andrews will withdraw the claim that I outed Chris Kerr.
                            >
                            >
                            I hereby assert that you failed to 'out' Chris Kerr solely by virtue of
                            the fact that your genuine belief that he was a pseudonym for Peter
                            Boyle turned out to be a mistaken belief. Had your belief been
                            well-founded and correct, you would logically have outed him.

                            Owing to the fact that he was immune / un-outable / 'in', I can happily
                            assert that you are not guilty of outing Chris Kerr.

                            Release the prisoner!

                            -AA.


                            --
                            Ambrose Andrews
                            LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                            http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                            +61-415544621
                            CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
                          • kieran latty
                            The claim of Zinovievism is unfounded, particularily in this case. There is no formal ISO position on the Moore issue. Whilst we did discuss the issue, of
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment

                              The claim of Zinovievism is unfounded, particularily in this case.

                              There is no formal ISO position on the Moore issue.

                              Whilst we did discuss the issue, of those ISO members present, 2 voted for Moore,  I Abstained.

                              Individual members were free, and did, express their views on this issue at the meeting of the Alliance.

                              They are also free to discuss these issues openly, as I have.

                              However, I do agree with the concept of democratic centralism- if we did have a full discussion and came to a formal decision I would expect other members of the ISO to abide by that decision.

                              They should still, of course, be allowed to raise disagreements with the aim of changing that position.

                              Now, i think there are exceptions to this rule.

                              If the ISO took a completely mad decision, I would have to consider arguing and voting against it openly.

                              I do not in any way think the Moore decision falls into that catagorie.

                               

                               


                              WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.