Re: NSW Council election results (and Bob's geography)
- By Bob Gould
Ambrose Andrews wrote:
>>Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as beingPeter 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
- --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
> Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow.my apologies, bob, i didn't know that you have that bad sources
> 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.
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 confirmsand in a later post you wrote
> me in my view that I didn't get anything wrong about the
> sequence of events in the Sydney Socialist Alliance branch.
> Quite obviously Nobby's account is completely incorrect,sigh... well, now that kieran "outed" himself - that's why it
> by way of omission.
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 atno. just one.
> 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 thatso does your ALP branch discussions end with "understandings"?
> preferencing Labor was the position of the Sydney branch of the
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 theso what does an ISO meeting have to do with the SA branch?
> ISO, at which the ISO leaders persuaded a majority to support
> preferencing Clover Moore.
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,not "still" - it was (from the accounts of this list) obviously
> which decided to preference Clover Moore, with the ISO member who
> still favoured preferencing Labor, dissenting.
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") allwell, despite my apologies above, i have to flip back: you ARE
> through, and he accuses me, in this spirit, of being a "fabricator
> of lies".
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 tooalright, 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 isto
> give a frank and honest account of the sequence of events and thecan't be bothered. (1) you got the accounts, and (2) i am not
> alternative lines of argument in the Alliance, the DSP and the ISO.
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 himdead wrong again here, though not with the latter 3 words.
> to engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
> crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying.
> But both groups are obviously bound, in reality, in the Socialist??? WE are the Sydney Central branch of SA, and WE are the ones,
> Alliance by the decision made by the leadership of the groups.
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...
- ozleft wrote:
> By Bob GouldVery good. I absolve you.
> 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 ofIndeed. This genuine belief turned out to have been a mistaken genuine
> 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 fellowI don't think saying 'Chris Kerr is a real person' qualifies as outing.
> 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 theNobby is not a pseudonym.
> 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.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!
LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
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