Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial Policy
Margo redrafted these guidelines for the new site, and we'll stick by them, subject to your input:
G'day. Since I started Webdiary in 2000, I've envisaged it as a space for civil discourse between Australians of different political viewpoints – a democratic conversation. I was heavily influenced in this idea by my experience covering Pauline Hanson's 1998 election campaign, when it became heartbreakingly clear to me that Australia was two nations, the inhabitants of which seemed unable to understand what the other was talking about, let alone have a chat about it. I wrote about this in my book Off the Rails: the Pauline Hanson Trip (see Chapter 18, We're all poor lean people and we're bangin' on your gate).
Thus, Webdiary's Charter states, in part, that its mission is "to help meet the unmet demand of some Australians for conversations on our present and our future, and to spark original thought and genuine engagement with important issues which effect us all, to link thinking Australians whoever they are and wherever they live and to insist that thinking Australians outside the political and economic establishment have the capacity to contribute to the national debate".
I am a small l liberal by inclination. I hold my views strongly, and one of them is that people with different views to me have the right to be respectfully heard and engaged with on Webdiary. To that end, in 2003 I published Webdiary ethics, which adapts the Media Alliance Code of Ethics for Journalists to meet the online experience and sets out my expectations of Webdiary contributors ethically. Here are my expectations of Webdiary contributors:
As a journalist I have ethical obligations to readers; as a contributor you do not. Still, there are a few guidelines I'd like you to follow.
1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.
2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write. For example, if you are writing about politics, disclose your membership of a political party.
3. Don't plagiarise, that is don't use the ideas of others without telling us where they came from, and don't copy the writings of others and pass them off as your own. There is no need. Put quotes around the words of other people, and tell us who they are and where you got them from. If you've used online sources for your contributions, include the links so others can follow them up.
4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary
5. Robust debate is great, but don't indulge in personal attacks on other contributors.
6. Write in the first person. Remember, we're having a conversation here.
[Added August 2007] It follows from the guidelines above that a question on the identity of other Webdiarists should be taken up with the editors, who will make whatever checks they consider necessary, but such questions will not be allowed within published comments, as it may be necessary to protect the identity of some Webdiarists, and in the classic double-bind of these things, answering only some questions on identity openly exposes the ones we can't answer openly.
From 2000 to August 2004 Webdiary's process for reader participation was through emails to me, which I cut and paste into my Webdiary entries. It was a cumbersome process, to say the least, as more and more emails came in. Sometimes, when interest was very high, like post-Tampa and during the led up to war in Iraq, I couldn't even read them all, and advised Webdiarists accordingly.My policy was to run all emails critical of me or Webdiary except those which were obscene or content free abuse. Apart from that, I picked emails relevant to the topics I was pursuing at the time and did not run emails which I felt breached Webdiary's ethics.
In September 2004 Fairfax handed over all responsibility for Webdiary to me via a new discrete Webdiary self-publishing system as part of my move from employee to contractor (see New Webdiary, frustrated Webdiarists). The new system provided for reader comments, and reader contributions exploded.
The new system challenged my editorial policy on reader contributions, and I struggled to adapt for months. At first, my policy was skewed heavily towards free speech whatever the downside. Some Webdiarists stopped commenting, telling me the space no longer felt safe due to the level of personal abuse I published. Thus, my free speech bent started to impact adversely on my goal for Webdiary, to facilitate civil democratic conversation on important issues for Australia among people of differing views.
Early this year the comments volume became so great that I could no longer both process comments and write for Webdiary, and I employed long time Webdiarist Jack Robertson to be Webdiary's comment manager. Jack did the hard work tightening up our publishing guidelines to make the space safer for all participants and ensure that debate was civil. He even instituted a temporary 'red card' system to force the issue. Jack drafted discussion guidelines, called a 'no abuse trial', and reported to readers on how it was working. Much commentary from readers ensued. See Jack R to pull beers at Club Chaos, Webdiary discussion guidelines and Webdiary 'no abuse' trial - week one.
Here are the guidelines I've carried over to our permanent home:
Posts that contain personal abuse of another Webdiarist will not be published. Serial offenders may be permanently banned.
'Personal abuse' is a difficult and subjective notion, but the following are likely to be so:
a. any criticism of a Webdiarist's actual or imagined physical appearance or characteristic (voice, inherent intellect), or non-physical qualities over which they have no immediate control (writing ability, education level, life or work experience);
b. posts which contain sneering or foul-language criticism of views and opinions, as opposed to witty and pithy critiques;
c. criticisms that depend for their sting even obliquely on a Webdiarist's specific (known or imagined) sexuality, gender, race, religion or nationality;
d. most criticisms that assign a pejorative adjective or noun to a person rather than an adjective or an adverb to that person's actions (including the action of expressing of an opinion);
Another useful guide to apply when deciding whether or not your post is 'personally abusive' is to ask yourself: 'would I be prepared to make this comment face-to-face to my fellow Webdiarist if we were standing at the bar of Club Chaos?'
Since then, I've found that more women have joined the conversation, and that debate has become more civil. The idea is simple – respect other people's points of view, and strive to engage with them on the merits. Passion is cool, and so is respect. If you think you've been unfairly edited, or that we've wrongly refused to publish your comments, please feel free to query our decision by posting a comment. This sometimes happens, and leads to an online discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the guidelines.
Next year I will set up a system whereby Webdiarists who feel hard done by can complain to someone other than me. That person, a Webdiary Ombudsman, will have their own section where he or she would publish non-frivolous complaints, my response, and their views on the matter. That way we can flesh out the guidelines as different issues arise.
Since September 2004 I have banned several people from Webdiary when I am satisfied that they are not commenting in good faith, but rather to destroy the safety of the space for the civil debate I'm seeking to foster. I will also ban people who make allegations of unethical conduct by me and refuse to either substantiate or withdraw their claims on request. I am a member of the Media Alliance, and for several years I've published the Alliance Code of Ethics for journalists and invited people who believe I have breached the code to complain to the Alliance, which has a process for determining ethical complaints against its members. Given that this process is in place, I won't put up with cheap allegations of unethical behaviour from me. I take such allegations very seriously, and expect those who make them to do the same. Respect for others includes respect for me. Banned posters will also be able to complain to Webdiary's Ombudsman.
Fiona Reynolds and Richard Tonkin moderate Webdiary comments. We do not delete any comment posted to Webdiary, and the statistics of how many comments we don't publish and why are provided regularly by Webdiary's managing director David Roffey in comments to his management updates). To date we have published 97% of comments posted to the independent Webdiary.
Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following matters:
1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.
Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other side isn't listening. There are plenty of sites around devoted to these subjects where the interminable repetition is welcome: go debate them there. When you're there, remember that the complete lack of any evidence just shows how well the conspiracy is working. Obviously it can be difficult to draw the line, particularly when debating 9/11, and that can lead to some inconsistencies between editors, but that's life.
=====================
Discussion guidelines are always a work in progress, and your input is always welcome.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
What a proper investigation would have revealed
In his first comment on Webdiary, made on the conversation thread associated with Australians - What Are We?, Paul Morrella challenged this comment made two days earlier by Phil Kendall:
There followed over two days some reasonable exchanges between Phil and Paul and others.
I notice that in these exchanges Paul asked a lot of questions of Phil and avoided providing any answers to questions asked by Phil.
By his 5th comment on Webdiary, Paul decided to use personal abuse directed at Phil Kendall:
That's effectively claiming that Phil tells 'untruths'. It could reasonably be interpreted as Paul calling Phil a liar.
Why did Paul turn to that kind of ad hominem argument in that 5th comment?
Well, he provided a clue to help us answer that question. He reveals that he felt he was being made to look "a fool".
Why did he feel like "a fool"?
It looks like it was because Paul was not 'winning' an argument on the very topic that he'd introduced with his first comment (the one challenging Phil's earlier comment on theft of Iraq's oil).
The next day Phil Kendall submitted a comment with the title Rude, Crude And ...
Phil concluded that title as the first line of his comment with:
He was talking about the US invasion of Iraq and oil theft. The pun on 'crude' makes this reasonably clear.
It may not have been so clear to Paul, who appears to have concluded that it was directed at him for shortly after Phil's comment was published we see the second example of Paul using personal abuse directed at Phil Kendall:
Did Phil call Paul those things? No. Was Paul feeling a little paranoid at the time? Only Paul can answer that.
Why did Paul accuse Phil of "deception" again? Why did he effectively level the liar accusation a second time? Why did he suggest Phil read that link carefully when it is about a reporter "aught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories"?
Following the chronology, Phil then sought relief from the personal abuse in his comment titled: A pot-boiler
It wasn't attended to by Webdiary's editor at the time.
I know now that Phil sent an email to Margo and that email was ignored.
I know now that Phil followed up and Margo told him that she would not deal with his complaint.
Both Phil and Paul then ceased exchanging comments and moved on to other aspects of the topic of the conversation thread.
On the thread examine Paul Morrella came back after a few weeks to take issue with the comments made by John Pratt in a comment titled Revolution?
John didn't take the bait and that was that.
Meanwhile on other threads Paul continued to target and try to bait Phil Kendall. I can outline that pattern of "trolling" in another comment.
I believe that if Margo had dealt with Phil's legitimate complaint when it was first raised, it is probable that the outcome would have been very different. She could have quickly reviewed the material, seen what had occurred and direct an editorial comment at Paul Morrella clarifying Webdiary Ethics and the Editorial Policy.
ethics/morality
Subtitle: "Do we need 'em? Wither, without?"
[WD/Editorial Policy]
I have said in the past, that "It's all data to me," so on a purely debating perspective, would a non-sanctioned nom de plume be so wrong?
Well, any person deploying a non-sanctioned nom de plume would be making an intentionally false statement, which means that (apart from being in breach of WD ethics), the said person would be a filthy liar[1]. Not too good for credibility, and rather undermines all statements made by such a person which are not clearly evidence based (i.e. accompanied by credible, checkable references.)
In addition, the same said person would be putting the WD management into ethical jeopardy, if/when said person made an attack on another WD poster.
Finally, the public unmasking of any non-sanctioned nom de plume might be more than slightly embarrassing (mostly for the liar), and would work to discredit any and all debates that such a person might'a taken part in, hmmm? And a public unmasking might even stifle debate on a far wider scale.
This problem is not localised, eh?
-=*=-
Ooops! All of the above assumes that morals matter, and in particular here, that liars shouldn't prosper. Clearly, (only so far?) no majority of the Anglo(Christian)CoW® electorate thinks so...
-=*=-
Part 2.
While we're discussing dodgy morals, what about another side of this coin, namely the courage of conviction?
Recently I said:
[pushing the paradigm, aka propaganda]
In recent times, I have directly challenged certain posters with quite pointed questions; as with the general statement above, I have received either point-blank refusals to answer - or (rudely?) no response at all.
What, then, is the status of any of my statements, and to mention the sharpest, 'murder for oil?'
I think it's fair to assume, that either these challenged people - and non-respondents in general, either accept the truth of my statements, or suffer a certain lack of courage in their convictions... hmmm?
-=*=-
Ooops again! Part 2 also assumes that morals matter, and in particular here, that murdering thieves shouldn't prosper. Clearly, (only so far?) no majority of the Anglo(Christian)CoW® electorate thinks so...
If morals just don't matter, what's to stop us all embarking on a life of crime? Perhaps it really is, that "Might is neither right nor wrong; it just works mate." [MDB]
Just in case that morals do matter, is there anything one could do? Well, one thing that could be done, is to mark the candidate(s) of the most immoral parties (aka those in the Anglo(Christian)CoW®, perhaps?) at the bottom in the order of preferences on the next set of ballot-papers...
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
Well now Phil - we are going to have to..
OK G'Day to you too Phil Kendall:
Now I already figured out the blasted bananas (and understood toadally) so until the corner shop here finds me some, I will not mention said inflated, prohibited fruit never ever again. Forget about Roslyn, this girl has not had a taste of said crooked fruit in three months and I'm pining I can tell you. Can't you folk sent some out here from the big smoke for a gel instead of hijacking the lot down there? I'll pay anything, so long as you don't tell Peter the Banker otherwise the old mortgage might take another hit. Blaming it on the poor old said yellow bent fruit. Never heard the likes!
Thanks for the tips and I think if you see my little defence of that terrier (and leave him out of it because I'm still in mourning, notwithstanding the fang marks that will forever be my lasting memory of his unfailing love and gratitude) I did a pretty good job on the Irises, don't you? Now all I gotta do is work out how to insert the links and I dare not ask the other half to show me again. He gets a tad impatient if I drag him off the roof of the shed. So when in need, would you mind if I asked nicely?
Now to a very serious point. If we gonna be the Aussie kulcha police, we gonna half to watch our step Phil. There's me misquoting the old Banjo to you, and not a soul picks me up. So I will just sneak a word in here if you don't mind. Sunlit plains... From Banjo Paterson, Clancy of the Overflow. There fixed it!)
Maybe we could ask for a review of the old policy here. Every post from OZ land to be required to have at least one quote from old Banjo or his mates. Why we might even propogandise the flaming Pommies (that allowed?) and drive old Willie Shakes right back to where he came from.
So for a start you unkulchad lot out there, who wrote this?
May the old bush tracks you've trodden be again beneath your feet, Your dusty lungs drink deeply of the clean air cool and sweet
In a by-way of the ranges where a she-oak avenue
Gropes for cloud capped mountains wrapped in Murrumbidgee blue
And there stand awhile in silence whilst a greenheart bows its head
To a deep full bosomed daughter of the ancient watershed
May you hear her sweet contralto in old pillared limestons halls, The broken water romping on the staircase of the falls.....
The Bulletin. C 1952. Well it has got to be better than the host of golden daffs surely?
Now for the vegan brigade: Greenheart. Early type wooden fishing rod.
:
Recte agis nil timeas
Phil Kendall: You have my apologies for adding an extra l to your name in two previous posts. It was an oversight which you might note I have since corrected in the latest. If it had bothered you before, you should have said so at the time. N'est pas?
Do you also apologise for failing to even address me by name once in the previous post? Despite the reference to the now inflated said fruit, I was actually asking myself all the way through the digressions in that post, is he talking to me here? In the end I figured out you were. Were you being discourteous Phil, or was the total omission of my name an oversight? I note in the above the usual courtesy of stating at the beginning who you are talking to was again bypassed. Apology Phil? Oh never mind. Let neither of us be petty.
Canada? I try to see that the canned fish I buy does not come from there. Where I can, I buy Australian in most things, even though it is generally more expensive. I find the manner of killing the seals abhorrent but nonetheless can accept why the indigenous people may depend on the sale of the skins.
Kulture or kulcha. Just careless. No good at stick and paste Phil. Always stuff it up. But that, and the ref. to sp and OED? Totally in jest. God, you are a walking OED. Me? I had to look up impudent at age ten on the misdemeanour note I was being sent to the Head with. Wise decision that. Into the bin, and hide out for an hour.
Same about price of land. I know where the problems lie in the bush, and what causes them. We have one of the best properties in the district in terms of soil husbandry, and tree conservation. As farmers move more and more to no till, things are getting better I think, though there is a hell of a long way to go. But there is a ricochet effect of urban expansion into the best farming land, with rate increases now too prohibitive, so farmers move further out. But even out here due to the ageing population there is overall population decline, with property aggregation evident all around us. Whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run I do not know. But what I do know it is its getting bloody lonely out here. Cubby? Never should have been allowed.
I openly admit to light hearted, (as opposed to malicious) provocation. But I can get a bit tetchy at times, to that I will admit also. Then again, I don't think I be sitting on a lonely island.
Anyway, I do think we are on different wave links so maybe it is best we don't go a fishing' together. So Godey to you Phil (with only one L) Kendall. BTW: The Aussie kulcha is alive and well out here. Spare us from those country singers and their pseudo Yankee accents.
Editor: I'm probably over the breathalyser limit. So you may have to shove me to the end of the Q. Trying to ignore the tax returns!
Fiona: What type of tea, Jenny? Ah, of course – the Burgundy of teas – Lapsang Souchong….?
Recte age - and pass the tea... please!
Fiona: Hi. Fifty years on. It was probably age but the old Latin is as rusty as the French. Hell, and school motto and all. This is getting serious!
It was Do right, fear nothing. Trouble is, I was always in detention. Never could quite do right in the eyes of some. Oh well. C'etait la vie!
And what's this Godey to Phil, with the one L, Kendall? Did I write that? Must be that damned Chinese tea. He'll reckon I am trying to bless him.
Cheers to you in Bleak City.
Let me put that, another way
First, the 'formalities': g'day Jenny Hume.
1. Bananas: first mentioned in this thread by Maurice Ivan (g'day) on July 25, 2006 - 11:11am: "let alone afford to buy half a kilo of bananas."
2. 'Name' and other 'quaint' courtesies: I refer you to my post 'slogans to the left of us - slogans to the right!(1528)' of July 5, 2006 - 1:12pm; a fulsome quote: "'Irrelevant sloganeer!' - as Nicklaus Wirth said, 'You can either call me by name, or call me by value.' If what I write is irrelevant, then so too am I. To 'lie down' and accept the utter travesty foisted upon the world by the US would be to suicide my very spirit."
Jokes usually suffer in the explanation, but this (Wirth) is a) the most extreme insider joke I know of and b) therefore it cries out (shrieks!) to be 'let out'. Spoiler warning: the explanation is below[1]. You don't have to 'go there' if you "don't want"[3].
Long (name) story short: my 'forbidden bananas' was written in answer to Roslyn Ross's (g'day!) query: "And what on earth is a 'false flag theory'? I need to know..." - so my post was an 'answer in context'. As was my 'bananas!' - With all due respect, geddit yet?
Wheels within wheels; it was quite acceptable (always IMHO, of course; and to myself as 'moral' arbiter), to so answer Roslyn (because of the hush! Hush! WD 'Verbot'), but also to pass on a 'slight' slight to you (JH) for the somewhat fresh (as in saucy) 'demanding' "why bananas?"
3. As for "bothering", there's things like 'graduated response' and 'last straws'. In plainer text, we await developments.
How to handle "those country singers?" I'd ask them either to "call me by name, or call me by value" - or whatever else; but always and only preceded by something not too linguistically distant from "G'day!"
To eliminate all possibility of doubt: I say 'start as you mean to go on,' here I'm worried about being swamped by the US but (if possible) worse, the sheople doing the swamping themselves. Only by pointing out to people that their language is 'off' can we ever hope for 'consciousness-raising' to try to save our lingo, along with our very souls (n. 2 moral, emotional, or intellectual nature of a person. [POD])
-=*end*=-
Refs:
[1] Wirth invented an obscure computer language called 'Modula-2'. First, an explanation of one of the most famous 'bugs'[2]. In FORTRAN, one can call a sub-program with an argument: CALL SUB(ARG). ARG specifies a 'variable', within which may be an input value to the sub-program. If the sub-program is designed to return an answer, it may store the answer into the (RAM) location named by ARG. If a (careless!) programmer codes 'CALL SUB(#value)' where #value is some actual number, i.e. 123, and the sub-program returns some answer (as designed), then the actual number, i.e. 123 may have its value changed, since the 'number' 123 has now been invalidly (better: erroneously) used as a 'label' (i.e. not an actual value); any eventual subsequent use of 123 is guaranteed to go wrong - and (almost nobody) will ever find that 'bug'.
Now, amongst other things, Modula-2 was designed to avoid exactly that situation, hence the quote: "You can either call me by name, or call me by value." So far, not very funny. But the "Ah ha!": Wirth is the German word for worth (Ønoun 1 a buyer may require independent evidence of the rug's worth value, financial value, monetary value, price, asking price, selling price, cost; valuation, quotation, estimate, assessment. [Oxford Pop-up]). (Haw?[4])
(Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.") You see (moving on), there's another 'joke' just dying to be built in here: "I'll only buy Canadian bananas if the price is right!" And to get a bit extreme, it's joke within joke; one of the most powerful programming tools is the loop; building self-referential text loops can be amusing (but no, definitely not along the lines of 'small things'. My more usual theme (No laughing!) is B, B & H's 'murder for oil,' - 2nd only to the 60+yr 'murder for land' by the illegitimate US' sprog, Israel.)
[2] Program 'bug'. A possibly apocryphal yarn; an early programmer (a lady - in the US (spit, spit!)) had a particularly intractable programming 'error', that is to say an 'invalid-out' in insider-talk. In desperation, she went to look into the hardware - and discovered some insect. "There's a bug in there!"
[3] Wha'd ya know about 'I don't want!'? Part of 'bringing up baby;' here both language and manners. "We would like you not to use 'I don't want!'" - the suggested usage precedes the objected-to phrase; the objection contains the suggested solution. Then to the injunction; a memory test as well - a) you have made an error, then b) what have we told you about this already? Wheels within wheels within wheels - better stop now. But you may get some idea of how we turned 'bringing up baby' into 'fun for all'(☺).
[4] "To be petandically accurate" [Eds! Haw!]: 'You can either call me by name(Wirth), or call me by value(Wirth)'(?!) Here, the error is the invisible one of concept/context. Many a program has failed, for exactly such trivialities as the wrong case having been used, say. In English, it'd be Worth(name) vs. worth(value). As the ultimate, a 'single-keystroke' error, the whole class of such being referred to as 'finger-trouble'. Haw, indeed.
-=*=-
A little 'bon-bon'; 'without prejudice': chezPhil's copy n' paste tutorial. (The following may look difficult and does need a bit of work, but: IMHO, the price is Wirth it! Haw!)
How to copy material from one place (a reference, say) to another - a new post, say. (Respecting copyright, and don't forget to attribute copied material if not your own!)
Method summary: specify the material (i.e. text) to be copied, copy it into 'the clip-board', then insert it right where you want it.
Specifying the material (i.e. text) can be done with the mouse; position the cursor to the first letter; click the left button and hold it 'clicked' down, move the cursor to the last letter then 'un-click' the left button. Voila! Highlighted. (Practice it.) This is only useful for short bits of text; there is a more general and ultimately better way:
Here's the 'complete' how-to.
1. Highlight the "from" target:
Put the mouse cursor on the phirst letter.
{click} the left mouse button, and hold it down. We can 'shorthand' this 'holding it down' with a notation: '+'. That is, 'Left Click and hold' is written as {L_click+}.
Now, move the mouse so that the highlighting moves to the last letter of the wanted section.
{Unclick} the left button.
Now, you've gotta get the stuff into the clipboard. But, before you do that, what if the text is too long? That is, if it overflows the window it's displayed in, what then? I'll give you a little tip:
{click} the left button on the phirst letter, then let it go.
Scroll down to the last letter, then press-and-hold the shift key (i.e. {Shift+}). It's possible (possibly preferable) to reverse the order here, and do the {Shift+} immediately after the first left {click}, which we can write as {L_click,Shift+} and then do the scrolling whilst holding the Shift down. Your choice; practice makes perfect.
Now {click} the left button again - and "Voila!" - the whole lot's highlighted. (This last operation could be written {Shift+,L_Click}. Ta Ra! The phirst inkling of keyboard short-cuts!)
2. Now, into the clipboard:
You *could* {R_click} and select "Copy", or (worse), you could start by selecting the "Edit" drop-down, or some such etc.
Wrong! - or at least, too cumbersome. Simply:
{Ctrl+Insert}, and "Voila!" again - it's in! (into the clipboard, that is... although you can't see it happening, it's done.)
3. While the iron is hot, pasting:
Phirst, move the mouse to where you wannit (where you want the copied text, that is...)
As before, you *could* go the long way 'round. Nope! Simply:
{Shift+Insert} - and "Voila!" for the last time, and there it is.
You may know, that to delete a section of text, you can highlight it then press the 'Delete' key. Following that, one more thing; to substitute some old text with some new (which you have already copied into the clipboard) i.e. to overwrite some 'old-text' with some newly copy n' paste 'new-text', highlight the 'old' before doing the {Ctrl+Insert}. Don't wanna get too complicated; but what happens if you make a mistake with all this copy n' paste stuff? OK, to reverse that absolutely last thing you did with copy n' paste, say, you could do {Ctrl+z}. That's the keyboard short-cut for 'Undo Typing' in MSWord; it works in lots'a other places too. Experiment, practice.
Hope it helps... but usually, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well - or so 'they' say.
One very last tip. To get a link into the clipboard, {R_click,t}.
-=*=-
PS to Bob Wall: G'day, your torpor is my ennui (malaise, dissatisfaction, unhappiness, uneasiness, unease, melancholy, depression, despondency, dejection, disquiet; German Weltschmerz. [Oxford Pop-up]).
PPS to Fiona: G'day, another song (not for cheering up, sorry; but see 'ennui') Billie Holiday.
non, je ne regrette rien_objection: correction, please
G'day Eds,
My title as submitted was "non, je ne regrette rien" which is a song title; you really can't fiddle with that. Otherwise, thanks for your good works.
Thanks also in advance, regards Phil.
Fiona: Dear Phil, I suspect that this should be a NFP comment, but I'm inclined to publish so that we can all blush. As a fan for the last 45 years of the little sparrow, thank you for introducing yet another thread of culture/kulture/kulcha into Webdiary. So, let us not regret - but maybe, just sometimes, consider La Vie en Rose (and don't get me started on Milord....)
Phil K: Hi, hallo, g'day , good night and goodbye
Phil Kendall: Ask a simple question. Get a rave. Wonder why. Never mind. I know.
Got to hand to you though Phil. You'd do well out here in the sticks. No trouble dodging the traps. Old tractor a bit past its use by, licence run out, no plates on the ute? No worries. Just take all the back tracks through the scrub and you'll be right.
Now I hope you didn't scratch yourself dodging around in the scrub looking for the way out coz I'm all out of iodine.
We farmers. No kulture? (sp Phil. culture.) Mislaid the OED? But culture. Won't bother with that one. Don't want to upset all the elite here by reciting old Henry in their presence. This is the House of William case you hadn't noticed. No. Byron in, Banjo out. Musn't appear too ocker Phil. Leave me to the yellow plains and let them wander midst the golden daffs, if that what turns them on. (Apologies to the Willie W.)
Price of land you ask? Well now. That is a good point. Do you think you guys (sorry blokes, (f) blokees) living midst the chimney stacks could just stay put, stead of coming out here, grabbing the best bits of soil, just so you can play in the dirt, all the time pushing us cockies further and further out into the wastes of the never never (thanks Mr Boake) to try and squeeze a quid out of the sandhills. I mean, six million bucks for a flaming sheep run that would not keep one foot stamping brat in ye olde Kings these days. What are you guys (sorry blokes) on about? Haven't you heard the old sheep's back is a bit crook these days. Oh, never mind. We will take what you got. Let's swap. Just promise me, when the sheep get a bit blowey and you ask some old cocky for advice and he tells you to hit 'em with a bit a' KFM, don't go shoving it down their necks, unless you want them all to lay down and die on you. Spare me from the boys from Pitt St!
Price of spuds? Ask the Irish. They might know. Experts on spuds.
Cubby house. Call in the Dam Busters by all means, but get the early warning system up and running in time to give the ducks downstream at least a 50/50. Six years old and haven't learnt to swim yet. Mohne? Not in the same class Phil. Need a dozen bouncers I would think to shift this one.
Before I go. Aussie speak. Few rules out here you better remember if you come to stay.
1. If you don't know the bloke at all, never seen him before, just say Good day. Gives you time think and ask yourself: Now who the hell is he, and what the hell does he want.? Wise out here, believe me. Whatever you do don't say good day mate. Too friendly. Not a good idea out here.
2. If you do know the bloke, but got a fit of the old alzeihmers and want a bit of time to get a handle on his name, then say Good day mate. How y' going? Then scan the brain box fast while you put the billy on.
3. If you do know the bloke, and got good recall, then say hallo Jack (or whatever) or good day Jack. (If you just say hallo, or good day, and leave his name off, he will know for sure he's not welcome.)
And don't come out here and say Hi. Or call them guys. We reserve that for you blokes in amongst the chimney stacks. When in Rome, speak their lingo. Your problem folks, not mine.
BTW: Before I say good bye, and it is good bye as I don't think we have too much in common Phil, so we won't waste each others time, are you prepared to answer this one? Do you think Johnnie Howard should say Sorry to our indigenies for the sins our fathers, grandfathers, or not? Simple question. No tricks. Yes or No will do. No need to head for the scrub.
I'll pass on all the previous raves thanks. I got your drift.
Non, je ne regret rien
Before and during 'bringing up baby' (there is normally no 'after', it's a never-ending process - also reflexive), we at chezPhil identified 'key phrases' as well as key actions.
As well as being prepared; dyb, dyb, dyb! (Response: We'll dob, dob, dob!) But perhaps the most important key phrase of all: Tell me no lies!
Jenny Hume: "No kulture? (sp Phil. culture.) Mislaid the OED?"
If one were to set out to lecture another ("holier-than-thou"), it would probably pay to a) make sure one has the high moral ground and b) be perfectly correct about any accusation.
Jenny Hume: Maybe Phill Kendall has a point about bringing up baby. Oversight? Hardly, Jenny Hume again: "Phill Kendall: No, I am not racially prejudiced..."
Oscar Wilde: "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
Score: two mis-spellings; probable cause a) insufficient attention to detail, b) typing instead of copy'n pasting and c) in light of both (a) and (b), general discourtesy. From the Comment moderation thread, the 'WD official line': "comments that refer to other Webdiarists by nickname or any other name than that which they use themselves will also not be published."
Nowhere have I ever used "kulture." From my post: "It wasn't very good kulcha, but it was our kulcha). Or perhaps you didn't notice the filthy, creeping culture-corruption either, since you don't realise you've been propagandised?"
Note specifically: "creeping culture-corruption."
Finally here: "Mislaid the OED?" The short answer is "no!" Apart from rigorous use of a spell-checker, I specifically cite [POD] and [Oxford Pop-up] when quoting from these preferred dictionaries, as well as having the associated The New Oxford Thesaurus of English The Oxford Dictionary of quotations and The Oxford World Encyclopedia at hand. The answer to "Mislaid?" is "Hardly; provably (google it!) not".
Such inaccuracies in this context (claiming kulture when I said kulcha, alleging I can't spell 'culture' when the ninth word after one use of 'kulcha' is - ta ra! 'culture'), these inaccuracies amount to false statements; the question is then: intentionally or not? If intentional then outright lies, of not then unconscionable negligence.
Which is it?
-=*=-
Before I wrap this up, here's another of those 'key phrases': "It's always someone else's fault!" Keeping that in mind, try this:
[Jenny Hume]
Changing the subject slightly, Australia is the fabled "land of the local maximum." Examples abound; take dirt-farmers. Smartest in the world! Best practice! They make ingenious deals with other farmers, to farm the same dirt twice. Once here, then once again in NZ. (The Swiss do a similar 'farm it twice' trick, however instead of creating dustbowls, they just walk around to the other side of the mountain.)
Oh, yeah. Be it in a Roller, Porsche or WW2-look-alike Toyota, Q: just whad'y think y'get if y'cross a paddock... covered in sloppy-sticky sheep s**t? A: A coating of 'stuff' under the car, which can set like concrete. The mechanic (wiping his hands on a very stained bit'a cloth) asked, "Just what was that stuff under your car?" To be perfectly honest, he went a bit green when I told him. Why that, I thought? Then I spied his lunch-box debris. No, not KFM, but KFC.
A penultimate: other than baby seal fur coats (slightly ill-suited to out the back'a Bourke, one might'a thunk - unless one sets the air-con below 19°c - about 66° Farmerheit - err, Fahrenheit), can you name one significant product from Canada which you didn't buy, although it was the cheapest? Don't bother with an answer; but talking of cheapest, did you hear about the uncomfortable astronaut? He said what gave him misgivings was sitting on top of a 111m, 3,038,500 kg pile of mostly high-explosives, knowing that each of the squillions of individual bits were all provided by the 'lowest bidder'.
Last 'kick': there's an expression: "can't lie straight in bed." Recall that our wide-brown is the fabled "land of the local maximum;" combine any amount of "world's superlative" and utter, undisguised and super-cynical hypocrisy. Add in another of chezPhil's key phrases: 'sorry doesn't help much.' Voila! (exclamation there it is; there you are: ‘Voila!’ she said, producing a pair of strappy white sandals. ORIGIN French voilà. [Oxford Pop-up]) Fearing the slightest subtlety might go over some heads like an Ivan Lendl serve: any talk of Howard saying 'sorry' is simply a distraction. (Any qualifier, i.e. stupidity-level, to be assigned to the distraction may be done by each individual reader.)
-=*=-
What is clear, is a general (and now confirmedly two-way) antipathy, which is too bad because I did think there was 'something valuable in there' to be fished out while (however unsuccessfully, as it turns out) suppressing my own allergic responses. I openly admit to (light-hearted as opposed to malicious) provocation; too bad the poor result. I leave you, Ms Hume, with something to ponder [CBS 60mins]: "but the price--we think the price is worth it."
This is not "whatreallyhappened.com"
Roslyn Ross, I believe a ‘false flag” theory is your staple government “conspiracy theory” these days. Basically it means a government creates an act of war or terrorism, then makes it look like someone else did it. The flag bit seems to have maritime origins, for example a French ship might have attacked a British port under a Spanish ‘flag’.
9/11 has numerous “false flag” theories of its own. I suspect the editorial decision behind banning the posting of conspiracy theories aims to prevent debate deteriorating into a state of loony paranoia. I think the editors prefer that Webdiary be a place for serious and rational debate. There are plenty of sites around to entertain an individuals own fantasies about government conspiracy. 9/11 has become a modern version of the faked moon landing, aliens in Roswell etc Webdiary cannot pretend to be a serious site if degenerates into debate on numerous wild conspiracy theories. I strongly agree with the present editorial policy.
Theories aplenty and therein can be truth
Gareth: Many thanks for explaining the 'false flag' theory. I can understand the thought processes behind the censoring of such things but I still believe that there is a wide range of information available on subjects, 9/11 included, which enable rational and serious debate.
There are radicals and wild theories aplenty in the world but the reason why free and open debate is important is because it gives an opportunity to either substantiate or refute.
One man's conspiracy theory is another man's truth. Censorship, by its nature, is the imposition of the views of one person, group, or in this case site, upon others. That's not what I call free debate.
Moderating surely deals with 'off the wall' posts I would have thought. Although plenty of 'off the wall' posts of the name-calling, insulting, defamatory and obtuse seem to get through.
We can agree to disagree. I think WD does a good job but find the particular exclusions like 9/11 and the holocaust to be a little odd. Yes, I can understand it, from your explanation in regard to 9/11 and as I said before, in regard to the hysteria button which seems to be ever primed in regard to the holocaust, but one then wonders why other controversial topics are not included.
Religion for one which can easily draw lots of 'off the wall' comments; or the assassination of JFK. If one cannot question some controversial and sensitive topics then why can others be questioned? I suppose, in singling out these two, there is a position taken by WD which reveals or at least implies, a subjective position in regard to the issues.
Interestingly of course the reason why holocausts happen is because the powers that be manage to prevent free and open discussion of so-called conspiracy theories. There were whispers of the Russian gulags before the truth came out, there were whispers of Pol Pot's excesses, and of course of the Nazi atrocities and these would all have been, at one point, conspiracy theories.
Freedom of speech protects us from such things and those who publish always have the ability to monitor and edit how things are expressed.
Surely it is in questioning everything that we make it possible for anything and everything to be revealed. If one topic can be a no-go zone then why not another? Just a thought.
Roslyn, the reason -
The reason that 9/11 conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial should NOT be topics here is that they are obviously racist and hate-inspired as well as an utter waste of everyone's time and energy. The Holocaust and 9/11 are well-known historical facts and the perpetrators are too. Your fixation on questioning the Holocaust is somewhat puzzling but it certainly does fit with your impassioned opposition to Israel.
Richard: I seem to remember David Roffey suggesting a while back that a Twin Towers thread was possible if demand warranted it. Maybe someone could write a piece?
Leap of logic
Mike: It is quite a leap of logic to suggest debate of these two issues is racist and hate inspired.
I am not actually interested in debating the holocaust. It is historical record, give or take perhaps some detail which will no doubt emerge with the recent release of Nazi records in Germany. The horrors of the holocaust are not in doubt and the evidence that a systematic attempt to kill jews, gypsies, homosexuals and political dissenters is without question as things stand.
But 9/11 is very different. We have only the official view of what happened. There is a great deal of evidence which differs from this and it is being carried out by reputable experts including academics, scientists, pilots, architects, demolition specialists and engineers. There are many discrepancies as to the events of the day and increasing evidence, in fact, that many of the supposed perpetrators on the day are alive and well. Given the events which are sourced in 9/11 it behoves all of us to be very, very sure about what happened that day. Or as sure as we can be.
Then again, as has been clearly demonstrated time and time again, politicians lie, governments lie, supposedly often in the perceived public interest. The truths about World War Two and Vietnam took a long time to emerge. But emerge they should.
It is a fact that ultimately the truth will out. I have no problem questioning what I am told and have no problem with others questioning things either.
Then again, I find no topic sacred but I have an open mind. I am not sure Jesus Christ existed as there is virtually no archeological existence he did, but I am prepared to believe he might have been a real person. I doubt that he died and returned to life but I accept this could be possible; ditto the virgin birth. I am quite prepared to believe that 9/11 happened as we have been told but I would like to see clear evidence for it. I have seen enough evidence to the contrary to make me think that we do not really know the truth. But I do not have a fixed idea on what that truth might be. There are many possible scenarios.
Given that 9/11 has given birth to yet more war I think we need to be very, very sure about whether or not the reasons which have been given for those wars are valid.
As it stands we were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we found out they did not. The truth put paid to the lie. Anything which puts paid to lies is in the interest of all of us. That is why freedom of speech is so important.
It is a precious gift which is more available than it has ever been. Everyone was lied to in WW1 and WW2 by all concerned. I don't want to see another world war sourced in lies. Do you?
Waste of time, Richard.
If Webdiary starts getting into nonsense like 9/11 conspiracy theories then you will likely lose the more sensible part of your audience. I'd advise against it. Keep the topics reality-based.
If instead the topic concerns what led the Islamaniacs who carried out 9/11 to do what they did, that would be fine with me, although it would probably generate as much heat and little light as the various Israel threads.
commercial in confidence (shortened to 'con', as in 'trick')
Re: 'nanas, sorry; can't do. No details to be disclosed. (Hidden agenda; extremely well hidden it seems, from you at least.) This message will shortly self-destruct in a genuine but sadly futile attempt to protect the Oh so many dreadful, innocent victims. Heart in right place, but currently toadally overwhelmed by forces of evil.
Yours sincerely; hoping for codeword 'blue-sky' bio-sustainable rescue,
(signature redacted)
PS We don't say "Hi, Guys" together, nor just "Hi" or "Guy" or any other such-like s**t (detested Ameri-speak - spit, spit!) Ameri-speak is swamping our great Aussie lingo, and therefore destroying whatever kulcha we might'a ever had (yeah. It wasn't very good kulcha, but it was our kulcha). Or perhaps you didn't notice the filthy, creeping culture-corruption either, since you don't realise you've been propagandised? All'a that anti-Aussie spew pours out'a TVs all'a cross our wide-brown, like a filthy torrent out'a stinking sewer. I know it for a fact, i.e. I just had Seven-Sunrise on (only for professional reasons, you understand) and heard an ostensible dinky-die say "Thanks, guys." Not even you can pretend it's not all pervasive - an' it's in the AusBC too (for example, Alan Saunders agreed to stop saying "Hi"). Even closer; you could try asking Margo (g'day!) Which reminds us (no, not Margo; exactly the opposite: the sewer) of just one'a our (mass-murderous!) to-be-brown-nosed-in-a-conga-line 'allies' nicknames: Septics. Not for no reason.
(Why would I rave about culture to a farmer? Silly me.)
Of course, speech is only the vehicle - but even just hearing the s**t makes one both wince and despair. It is, as they say, the content that counts, and for a perfectly dreadful example, hardly bettered since the 'people-shredders' travesty - on the way to a totally unjustified (except, say as 'murder for oil'), utterly criminal, mass-murderous illegal invasion, see Howard says Israel must defend its 'right to exist': "the exhortations from the Iranian President that Israel should be destroyed and wiped off the map". This *utter, lying garbage* has been comprehensively debunked 'in here' as elsewhere, here's a good example coming from some decent people in Germany. (As opposed to some perhaps just that little bit 'less decent', a current example of whom having been cuddled - or was that man-handled - at the recent G8.)
Extending the rave: as a farmer, you are a victim (of our 'system', aka the "world's best!") - and not a trivial victim either (at least by the sounds of it but whaddo I know?), and you know about it (but not propaganda, Oh no), as you've loudly complained about your victim-hood in here. Lots'a farmers are forced to slave away largely only for the (self-inflicted) miserable pittance left after paying the (blood-sucking!) mortgage, say. But some fly private-planes, and not your cheapie ultra-lights - Oh no; very much to the contrary. And the Rollers, crossing the paddocks... covered in sloppy, sticky sheep s**t. Only in times past? I doubt it; then there's Cubby. Yeah. The water rippers-off - just too bad if you're down-stream; poor fella my country, indeed. Business is Business? Bit of a stretch, but you never know (without looking); but it would fit the pattern, though. An extreme example of an "our world's best system" rip-off would be $30 dollars a tonne for Tassie spuds 'at the farm gate' then $3000 a tonne "at the take-away window" - or some such; I'm not doing your research. Perhaps you could explain one thing, though: just why do farmers bid up the price of farmland so stupidly sky-high, only to force themselves into an even more stupid debt-trap - then over-using the poor land, soil-mining the wide-brown into a dustbowl? In other words, what's the 'intelligence' behind risking voluntary poverty? Or, have the city-slickers just been suckered by sly farmers' crying-poor propaganda - haw, haw, haw!
PPS If you haven't got the message yet, it can hardly be my fault. You could try examining one or two of my last few hundred posts, say. But I'll save you even that small trouble, from my WD_1335 'maxims', Submitted on July 23, 2006 - 5:05pm: fair go, ya mug; stop the rip-offs, stop the killing: NO WAR!
forbidden fruit! (i.e. bananas)
Mindful that the 'Verbot' extends also to links, examine the following and enter the appropriate bits into google:
Web Results 1 - 100 of about 182 English pages for "False flag" site:thedailyheretic. (0.46 secs)
I'll make it even easier; copy'n paste from and including the 1st double-quote up to but not including the following full-stop. If the 'hit' I'm thinking about isn't #1 look for 'Wednesday, April 13, 2005' I haven't looked further; can't recommend any ('Verbot' rules?)
Different topic, but while preparing for this post, I found this on propaganda at Wiki.
An while we're about it, you could try this one on the book 1984. Search it for "the big lie".
Re Forbidden Fruit ! (ie Bananas)
Phil Kendall: Would you mind enlightening me please as to what is suddenly so amusing about bananas being forbidden fruit. Why bananas in particular?
Censorship is censorship
I am of the view that no subject should be sacred and the issue should not be what is said but how it is said. Mature debate about issues, and that means informed and courteous debate, is, I believe, always a positive contribution. Censorship is censorship and excluding any topics is censorship.
However, one abides by the rules of the particular game and I accept that Webdiary has its own rules.
I can understand the decision to stay away from the holocaust because of the capacity for hysteria which the topic seems to evoke, but I do not understand why 9/11 is a no-go zone. There is a growing movement questioning what happened on that day and its members include academics, scientists, engineers, pilots and the whole gamut of 'experts' whose opinions, whether right or wrong, are thought provoking. On the basis that as adults we should be allowed to question and explore whatever happens in our world and that the more we know about our past the less likely we are to make the same mistakes, I really do not understand why a thorough exploration and discussion of 9/11 is considered unacceptable.
And what on earth is a 'false flag theory'? I need to know what it is so I can avoid it.
Let It All Hang Out
I agree with Roslyn.
In fact I would go further. She says:
"I can understand the decision to stay away from the holocaust because of the capacity for hysteria which the topic seems to evoke, but I do not understand why 9/11 is a no-go zone."
WD policy is to not publish anything that denies the fact of the holocaust.
Why not? You can see what Roslyn Ross has in mind by the words she chose to describe WD's policy.
Why not let her have her say on what she thinks about this. And 9/11 for that matter. Why sanitise the stuff these people have to say? I say put it all on show.
That way, if anybody is still inclined to take seriously anything else these people say then they have only themselves to blame. They cannot claim they haven't had full warning.
Liars of us all
We seem to miss everything that belies the situation with Prime Minister, John Howard and the Treasurer, Peter Costello. Regardless of the situation, that seems to have caused a great divide within the Liberal Party (and let us finally recognize this; the political party that rules the government and its people with an iron fist and no questions asked attitude (somewhat of a communistic approach as it was with Russia during the Cold War), a liar is a liar.
It is no more fair to say that if one lies to their country one might as well be charged with treason to the flag because their lies do no good for the nation and its people, it belittles the people and denotes a lack of faith and trust from them to the people. We are without doubt faced with members who have been shown to lie and it is this reason that seems to be carried out without accountability for their actions, this denotes a shadowed and seemingly well hidden fact and that if these men of so called honor and loyalty to their nation and its people lie at one point of their political career, then what stops us from thinking that they have not been lying about everything else during their term in office.
I am no Beaszley man; I am no man belonging to any other man who believes only in what they can gain for themselves without focus to others who really need focus. I am a man who sees and hears the fellow mans scorns and complaints and the effect of the poor mans lack of care within this state of affairs. We are finally facing the inevitable engravement of the Poverty Line. A line that is soon to be completely defined by the labourers who work for pittance under the new IR laws, making no one but the rich richer and secure. A line that will be soon defined as a trench so that any man below, who wants to excel beyond it will simply fall right in, with no where else to go.
The unemployment rate has definitely decreased and this can definitely be credited to John Howard and his coterie of overpaid PSs and Ministers, but at what cost? How long will it take for people to realize that soon it will be too late to do anything about anything and that the old “she’ll be right mate’ and the ‘not much you can do about it’ attitude wont get us out of the rut that seems to be looming for all those who can barely afford the current petrol prices, let alone afford to buy half a kilo of bananas. If we let things carry on as it is, we will be faced with a nation of labourers slowly sold out to foreign nations as slaves for rich organizations and companies. They have already been doing this with the likes of Telstra and who knows what else.
We will be no better than the poor Kurd or African who toils for less than a dollar a day, while the lying CEO sits comfortably in his office smoking cigars drinking the finest brandy and dealing with his overpaid lawyers, just in case the carpet gets pulled from underneath his 3000 dollar high-back leather chair.
A liar is a liar no matter how you see it and no matter what status or class you are from. As a self-acclaimed Christian, with strong Christian beliefs, should he not follow by example and be judged accordingly, as he seems to judge everyone else by those examples and beliefs? It is time that the people started to realize that it is in their power to do this, to hold him and his Ministers and Public Servants accountable for whatever lies or manners of deceit they have engaged in presently and in the past, so that they and any future leader, regardless of ruling party, can fall within the guidelines of the people and the nation that they love and feel unconditionally patriotic towards.
What kind of a hopeful and prospective future are we creating for our children and into whose hands are we leaving them in? We will all see how much value our votes have in the next election, but most importantly who will stand up to be our next so called trustworthy leader of the people. I am hoping that someone will come up true and make a liar out of me.
hi Maurice....game plan? Victoria has voting machines
Hi Maurice, you have said what has been making me fill with growing anger since I watched East Timor unfold and then the lies again.
How do we do our civic duty to protect our nation from the present criminals and corrupt who lie and decieve and do deals to keep power, even war, when most Aussies are too apathetic or naive to understand the picture?
Victoria now has touch vote machines. The end is nigh.
global awareness for the preservation of all life
United Global Call “Preservation of life for all life’s sake”
I have always believed that in order to seek the truth one must sacrifice everything for the truth, but one must know oneself before they make that step. This is my step.
I was born in an era of relentless turmoil, one that still exists to this very day. An era where governments formed secret organizations, deceiving their people with notions of national security and the impending doom of terrorism, that will one day bring the fall of mankind by delivering the innocent to an evil that knows no mercy. Governments that have given false illusion by claiming strength through purity, a purity that involves covert assassinations based on power struggles and the greed of a selected few whose only intentions are for the betterment of their own.
That history has shown us the dark side of man is not only blatantly evident, but also only recently even more so evident because of leaders chosen, those in the past and those present today. Leaders who seem to follow the steps of men that (we have learnt from history) have brought nothing but horror and atrocities. We have become so aware of our nations historical misuse of power through evidence of events throughout mans civilization, that now we are faced with the fear of acting against them, because of the very reason that alone we do not stand a chance.
That those allied with such dark shadowy characters, whom claim purity through strength and use honor like a coat of arms, just as the knights of the crusade used during their puritanical conquest throughout the Arab nations and all throughout Europe and Africa, leaving only a history of unremorseful bloodshed - can only be questioned by their fealty to these self proclaimed leaders of men who claim their actions are for the good of all mankind.
But in searching history and its examples of man vs. man – for the sake of defining a leader of mankind – we have come to a point of breaking, mentally, physically and spiritually. The people are voicing out now, but no one is interested, no one is listening, no one cares, at least not those who we have claimed to represent us. Yet a country and its people should not be defined by the actions of a reckless, renegade and roguish leader, nor should they be defined by those who have claimed fealty to these leaders. No, that responsibility rests solely on them. For it is they who have taken up the vocation as a representative of the people, their people, the very thing that defines that nation.
When these leaders and those pledging fealty to them have become untouchable to the voices of their people, then it is only just that they are held accountable for their actions. Actions, which demise and constrain the truest human quality, the quality of being humane for the sake of humanity. Too much has prevailed in our history for us to turn away from; an evil passed down by generations of those who do evil. The darkness is spreading and this darkness is rising, greater than man has ever witnessed.
It is slowly surrounding us, devouring everything we cherish, everything we worship and everything we hold dearly and close to our hearts. It is a darkness that will soon envelop us and extinguish the light that we know as life, if not physically then most surely within us all. This darkness has been fed by the complacency of man, the apathy that has slowly crept into our beds whilst we slept. It has made us comfortable with the everyday needs and wants of our demanding society. A society structured purposefully for that reason. We have become accustomed and institutionalized by the overwhelming security of money-at-hand. Our hunger for an easy life without effort, will or motivation to work for, has become a bottomless pit incapable of sustaining, making it all too easy for greed to sink its teeth into us, whispering the words;
“It’s not enough!”
These elements of beings that govern our societies, structuring and providing us with these comforts, have clenched their hands tight around our necks, like shackles to slaves.
The creation of religion, an ingenious idea spawned by mans own imagination and frustration to bring some tangible meaning to their existence, has brought us no salvation and plunged us deeper into hate for one another. Societies and organizations that have plotted and planned devious atrocities, by means of deception in order to gain power over the weak. Men, we have chosen blindly to represent us and lead us, have seated themselves on thrones longer than needed, greedily exhausting the resources of our planet and its people, just to empower themselves into a vice-grip position within our governments.
Plotting amongst each other, showing slight of hand to the public whilst pointing the finger of blame to an enemy that doesn’t exist. When the public has reached the end of their patience, demanding for the justice and peace that was promised, another enemy is conjured up. One greater than its predecessor. And many more innocent souls are flung into the chaos of war. Sacrifices planned and executed for the greater cause of those in power, clenching and tightening their grip on the nations and their people. Incidents staged and managed at the expense of innocent lives. Governments dealing death cards out to lives with families awaiting their non-arrival. All for a cause they believe is for the greater good of man…which man?
Self proclaimed heroes, martyrs of a world torn apart by their own manifestations, their own creations, by means of mass manipulation; fascism, hatred, fanaticism…the list goes on, as well as the ever-growing, ever-spreading and ever multiplying and branching institution of the Christian faith. An institution that has sold itself to politics and governmental beauracrasy; lost its ways and become servant to the ever-popular values of gold and power. Numbers! Numbers! Numbers!
“The more we claim to have, the greater we are.”
Now we are amongst those we have chosen to lead whom will surely deliver us into the hands of God. But it is not a God of peace nor is it one of mercy. It is a God of war and chaos, a God of severity. It is a God that is the antithesis of the one we have for so long felt within. The very existence of this preserves the life within us all, bringing us to know right from wrong. Preservation of life does not mean to take the life of one in place of another, nor does it mean the life of one for the greater good of the many, let alone for the greater good of a kind.
We can not sit idly by any longer and feel what we have been shown, taught since birth, exposed in a manipulative manner by the media and promised by so many leaders whom have only secured peace for themselves. The bloodshed, that has been senseless for centuries, must end and it must end here and now if we are to thrive and progress, humanely, as an advancing civilization. Complimenting the planet by reflecting the very nature it embodies and has revealed to us for millions of years. The very innocence and beauty that it exemplifies, its inner strength and versatility through adaptation is within all of us. For the good of all of us.
The tranquility, peace and all its unpredictabilities that brings balance to the very existence of what we know as the life’s cycle is a part of us all and we a part of it. Nothing greater and nothing lesser. Yet the balance has been tipped and there are those of us whom wish it to turn in their favor. This is the chaos that we have complacently and apathetically let devour us. Do not fool yourselves, to stand up against the tyranny that shadows us now, means to lose what we have gained in material worth, but there is so much more to gain at such a small cost.
At the end we shall be standing and it won’t be alone. We cannot, nor should we not be led by any one being. It must be together that we stand against these over powered governing forces. Together, united, can we demand the halt to the deception and the end to the creation of all those whom have contributed to greed, fascism, fanaticism, hatred and lust for power over a world that belongs to no one, but can be shared peacefully by all, equally and unconditionally.
Living and choosing to live in peace with love for another and respect towards each other, keeping sacred the one true belief above all other beliefs; the preservation of life for life’s sake. The well-being for all humanity in an environment that is safe for ourselves and our future generations.
We have tried endlessly, to the point of exhaustion, living in demand of material values and abiding by the code of ‘an eye for an eye’ never really bowing to the needs of our soul’s salvation, that now would be a time for a change. The future, if there is to be one, of our children demands it. To change now would be to have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but if we choose to continue as we are, letting things stay as they are, then we stand to lose everything we have gained, for nothing at all.