Syphilitic loon

August 31, 2008 at 7:33 pm (AWL, Human rights, Jim D, liberation, Racism, stalinism, thuggery, truth)

From the present issue of the Weekly Worker


“Given the AWL’s position of not condemning Israel were it to launch an attack on Iran, I was interested to see what they would have to say about Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia and the Russian response.

“After all, this is an organisation that advocates the right of self-determination for Tibet and for Kosovo without regard for what the consequences of that might be for workers’ unity in these areas, and which puts forward no programme based on proletarian internationalism as a means of resolving these issues. It is an organisation that in the case of Kosovo considered the issue was so important that it thought that the bombing and cruise missile attacks on Belgrade by US imperialism were “good” in trying to bring an end to them. Surely, an organisation that tells us it is one of “consistent democrats” would be consistently democratic in condemning Georgia’s ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia, and would tell us that the Russian response was “good” to stop it, wouldn’t it?

“Well, actually, no. Almost a week went by before the AWL could find words to give us a “provisional” response. In the meantime, long-time AWL cadre Jim Denham did come out with a response fairly quickly in his Shiraz Socialist blog. But rather than condemning Georgia’s murderous attacks on South Ossetia, which the United Nations now says have created around 150,000 refugees or about half the South Ossetian population, he quotes from an article by David Clark in The Guardian, which says: “By any reasonable measure, the impact of Russian policy has been uniquely destructive in generating political divisions in the Caucasus … Whatever his faults, [Georgian president] Saakashvili is no Milosevic – and wild Russian allegations of genocide have no independent support.”

“Denham tells us that he finds this argument “a lot more convincing than the crazed anti-American conspiracy theories and pro-Putin triumphalism”. In other words, it is a blatant attempt to minimise the murderous attacks by Georgia on South Ossetia. Worse, even after TV had been showing pictures of the devastation in South Ossetia caused by the Georgian action, and the vast number of refugees forced to seek refuge in Russia, Denham argued with me: “Arthur: all your last statement is just bullshit and bluster (as I suspect, you know full well): even if (as I don’t, in fact, believe) what you say about Georgia’s role in South Ossetia is true, it still doesn’t justify Russia’s actions …”

“But the incident is a good example of AWL politics. Denham later suggested that I was in some way afraid to reply to him. When I pointed out that the reason I had only just then replied was that that was the first I had seen of his posts, Denham accused me of lying. This was followed by the now usual AWL bureaucratic tactic of suppressing an argument if you can’t defeat it, and a threat to ban me from the site – I’d only ever posted a handful of posts there anyway – in addition to the AWL’s previous decision to delete my posts from their website.

“This is now clearly a very degenerate Stalinist organisation. Trotsky called Stalinism “the syphilis of the labour movement”. We should treat the AWL accordingly.

“Arthur Bough”.

Jim D replies: At risk of opening up another futile row with this lunatic, I repeat: where and when have I (or anyone else on the left) ever defended Georgian actions in South Ossetia? The liar Bough cannot produce one single shred of evidence.

Bough: I defy you – once again –  to find a single quote. Chapter and verse, please.

You are, quite simply a liar. Or a lunatic. Or both.

PS: What do you think about reports of Russian-inspired ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia?


  1. resistor said,

    I’d like to thank that scumbag Denham for the link, as it gave me the chance to read this article,

    Abominable Warmongering Left

    Sean Matgamna’s fake rhetorical questions are intended as a cover for his open social-imperialism, writes Israeli socialist Moshé Machover

    In the cacophonous chorus of warmongers – among the shrieks of hawks, howls of jackals and foul laughter of hyenas – the attentive ear discerns a distinctive discordant sound coming from the far left: it is the screech of the AWL. The misleader of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Sean Matgamna, has published an article in which he argues that, while an attack on Iran “will most likely lead to great carnage in the Middle East, and beyond”, it would be wrong to object to it if it is undertaken by Israel (‘What if Israel bombs Iran?’ Solidarity July 24).

    He is not actually advocating or endorsing such an attack – oh no! Nor does he “take political responsibility for it” – as if it would occur to anyone to hold SM or his little flock responsible for starting a major Middle Eastern conflagration. No, no, no! He just refuses to say anything against Israeli aggression. Go ahead, Israel – bomb away; feel free to cause “large-scale Iranian civilian ‘collateral’ casualties”! SM will look the other way.

  2. lpcn said,

    Political responsibility? As if the AWL or any other sect has any influence on anything at all in this world. George W has Solidarity delivered to the Oval Office by express courier he’s so hanging on every word. Fruitloop.

  3. Paul Fauvet said,

    So the Weekly Worker thinks that there are 150,000 South Ossetian refugees. That would be quite remarkable since at the start of the conflict the entire South Ossetian population was estimated at around 100,0000, 70 per cent of whom were Ossetians and the remaining 30 per cent Georgians.

    The vast majority of refugees fled, not the Georgian attempt to seize Tskhinvali, but the Russian thrust into Georgia proper.

    As for ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, that’s certainly been taking place. Satellite images distributed by Human Rights Watch show villages in South Ossetia ablaze, days after the fighting in the enclave had stopped. But these were villages inhabited by Georgians, and they had been torched by Ossetian militiamen.

    The reality is that a drive is under way, tacitly backed by Moscow, to create an ethnically pure South Ossetia that will then be absorbed into the Russian Federation, while idiots like the Weekly Worker cheer from the sidelines.

  4. entdinglichung said,

    please avoid terms like “Syphilitic”, etc. … the tradition in labelling opponents in the socialist movement but also human beings in general with terms linked to diseases or disabilities is not the best tradition of the radical left and was highly critizised by disability rights organizations

  5. sackcloth and ashes said,

    It’s also an insult to anyone with an STD to compare them to such scumbags.

  6. Jim Denham said,

    Sorry about using the term “syphilitic”: it was intended to be an ironic echo of the WW’s heading for Bough’s letter, but I can see that it comes over as gratuitously offensive to people who might suffer from that disease.. Too late to change it now, though.

    Btw: I see that Simon Tisdall (no friend of NATO), in today’s Graun, gives short shrift to Putin’s “unsubstantiated claims” of Georgian “genocide and ethnic cleansing” in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and puts the bulk of the blame firmly where it belongs:

    I note that Mr Bough has not yet come up with a response to my challenge to him to produce “one shred of evidence” that I (or the AWL. or – come to that – anyone else on the left), supported Georgian actions in South Ossetia.

  7. Jim Denham said,

    Oh, resistor: I and others have already dealt with the lies and hysteria of the Weekly Workers’s attempt to make out that Sean Matgamna supports (or, at least, would not oppose) an Israeli attack in Iran. I think we’ve disposed of the arguments of these liars pretty effectively, but just in case you’ve missed it all, start here (not that rational discussion is likely to make any impression on a crazed Israel-hater like you):

  8. Sacha said,

  9. resistor said,

    Firstly, only someone as dim as Jim Denham could write, ‘Simon Tisdall (no friend of NATO)’ when Tisdall has been a notorious NATO cheerleader in Kosovo for years.

    Secondly, it’s very clear what impression Matgamna wanted to give by his repulsive article. To portray a genocidal attack on an (nuclear) unarmed Iran by an (nuclear) armed-to-the -teeth Israel shows that Matgamna has contempt for the truth and a racist attitude to the Iranian people. Sacha Ismail has shown the backbone of a slug by defending the Healy-lite Matgamna. The good news is that with defections at the present rate, the personality cult that is the AWL can’t last much longer.

  10. Nuke Matgamna said,

    `Sorry about using the term “syphilitic”: it was intended to be an ironic echo of the WW’s heading for Bough’s letter, but I can see that it comes over as gratuitously offensive to people who might suffer from that disease.. Too late to change it now, though.’

    God you are an arse. That guy was probably on your side too.

  11. Nuke Matgamna said,

    `The reality is that a drive is under way, tacitly backed by Moscow, to create an ethnically pure South Ossetia that will then be absorbed into the Russian Federation, while idiots like the Weekly Worker cheer from the sidelines.’

    When the Israeli’s have attacked Iran what will you say? Oh yes, I remember: `good’. Talk about idiots cheering from the sideline. That’s you that is.

  12. charliethechulo said,

    …and your point is, Nook..?

  13. Will said,

    I would nuke Nuke Matgamna if I had the weapons at my disposal.

    Forra laff like. I would also take out Iranian nuke bunkers and totally fuck up ahmydinnerjackets plans for the jews and shit like that.

    PS. I am a Mossad operative so watch your language and that. I will get you in the end Nukematgamna.

    My tentacles are everywhere.

  14. Will said,

    PS. fucking Nuke and Resistooooooor and that other fucker .. wassisss name again? Fuck it I forget his name … they are all as funny as fuck. I laff my heed off at the fuckers every time I visit here. worra laff and that.

    Keep it up fellas — you make this place worth coming back to and that!

  15. Nuke Matgamna said,

    My point is charliethechulo that Denham’s support for Georgia is as hypocritical as Milliband’s as is yours. hyporcite.

    Will, how’s things over at the pissed up wankers for war site? Like.

  16. Jim Denham said,

    Nook: you’ve simply lost me now…I must be a bit thick. Bough accuses me of supporting Georgia against South Ossetia, and you say that my “support” is “hypocritical”…”as Miliband’s”!!! What the hell point are you trying to make, Nook?

  17. Nuke Matgamna said,

    That your support for Georgia is rendered hypocritical by the AWL’s decision to justify an attack on Iran when it comes just as Milliband’s support for Georgia and international law is rendered meaningless and laughable by his support for the invasion of Iraq and for Zionist colonialism.

  18. Jim Denham said,

    Oh dear: another thick moron who can’t read or think.

  19. TD said,

    AB writes: “Denham tells us that he finds this argument “a lot more convincing than the crazed anti-American conspiracy theories and pro-Putin triumphalism”. In other words, it is a blatant attempt to minimise the murderous attacks by Georgia on South Ossetia.”

    “In other words”? I’m sorry, that’s nonsense, it just doesn’t follow, it’s completely illogical. And what’s all this hyperhole about syphilis?

    I’m not in, or even particularly sympathetic to the AWL. It is, however, sad to say though this may be, probably the most healthy among the trotskyist organsisations.

    All this venom flying back and forth (including from people in the AWL – MO, for instance) is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the class struggle.

  20. Jim Denham said,

    This is good, and puts the final nail in the coffin of the ‘Morning Star’ apolitical, non-working class, Russiophilic ‘left’:

  21. resistor said,

    So Jim Denham approves of Capitalism’s house journal, The Ecnomist. The piece he quotes was written by Edward Lucas

    ‘Edward Lucas is deputy editor of the Economist’s international section. He has been covering the central and east European region since 1986. His postings included stringing for the Economist in Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States, and being editorial director of the Economist Intelligence Unit in Vienna. In 1996, he became Berlin correspondent and in 1998, Moscow bureau chief. After leaving Russia in 2002, he covered education and transport for the Britain section until 2005. He has been in his present post since the launch of the new International section in 2006.’

    More on this hero of socialism,

    ‘He was educated at Winchester College and the London School of Economics. He has contributed to several books, including “Why I am still an Anglican” (Continuum 2006). His father is the Oxford philosopher John Lucas, and he is married to the columnist Cristina Odone.’

    and from
    ‘ So does anyone know a good parody of the Internationale?’

    Love your sources comrade.

  22. Arthur Bough said,

    I hadn’t intended to bother writing here again as it seems as pointless as writing comments to the AWL website, and as I said a couple of weeks ago the only blogging I’ll be doing for the new couple of months is on the move as I’m touring Europe, but I was drawn here by a link from elsewhere to read David Broder’s letter about his resignation from the increasingly Stalinist regime of the AWL. I’m thankful he has saved himself in time.

    There is little point replying to the ravings of Jim Denham especially as I’ve already given the Chapter and verse of the way in which he excused the attack of georgia on South Ossetia two weeks ago. I will answer his P.S. above though.

    On the morning that the BBC was showing pictures of the Georgian bombing and shelling of South Ossetia I wrote a blog about that saying that South Ossetia had the right of self-determination even though as a socialist I would not advocate such a course. A few hours later when the BBC was showing the Russian tanks moving in as a response to that bombing and shelling I wrote a further bolog with the heading “Georgia and Russia Out of South Ossetia”. It did not take me a week as it did the AWL to come up with the basic socialist position that Marxists do not support military action by bourgeois or Stalinist states as the soluiotn to workers problems or national conflicts. In those and the following blogs I also pointed outr that one of the reasons socialists do not advocate such solutions – and indeed why they don’t advocate self-determination – is that such conflicts inevitably divide the working class, make the worklers pay for the crisis, and lead to further hostility and communal violence. I commented that there would inevitanly be such ethnic cleansing against georgians in South Ossetia by Ossetians just as there has been ethni cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.

    I also commented that whilst the Russians were calling for an international investigation of War Crimes by the Georgians there would undoubtedly be similar crimes committed by Russia in Georgia.

    Unlike you Jim who in the current tr4adition of the AWL seek to act as apologists for imperialism and its agents I took the position from the beginning of opposing both sides in this conflict and arguing that only workers unity can provide a progressive solution.

    Ossetia Victim of Bourgeois Nationalism

    Georgia and Russia Out of South Ossetia

    Whoop Ass and Class Politics

    Imperialist Hypocrisy

    Gates Blows the Gaff

    Crimes and Misdemeanours

    Third World War

  23. Llin Davies said,

    This reply to Jim Denham is illuminating.


  24. charliethechulo said,

    …and bollocks

  25. charliethechulo said,

    …for the record: no comments from Bough have been banned from this blog, despite Denham’s “heat of the moment” threat to do so. Volty and I prevailed. So Bough’s claim to have been banned from here is either a genuine misunderstanding on his part, or (more likely) …a lie.

  26. Jim Denham said,

    Bough: I repeat; where have I or the AWL (or anyone else on the left) defended Georgia’s action in South Ossetia? Go on: answer! You liar!

  27. Paul T said,

    These days for personal (health related) reasons Im barely involved in the left so I dont know personally the people involved but I have to ask Jim Denham, how do you think it looks to an outsider or some one who comes across this blog or another one when your replies or contributions to debates always appear to so ill tempered, e.g someone you disagree with is an idiot, a liar, a fool etc when most of the time you dont seem able to show how that is the case?
    Believe me it certainly doesnt convince me that you have much of any substance to contribute to a debate online or elsewhere which I assume isnt the case?

  28. Jim Denham said,

    Bough accused me of supporting Georgian aggression in South Ossetia. I have repeatedly asked him to back that accusation up with some evidence. He has continually failed to do so. I may be ill-tempered, but I don’t think having a good temper need extend to allowing people to tell lies or make insubstantiated accusations. I insist that people back up their claims with some evidence. If that makes me “ill tempered”, then so be it.

  29. Paul T said,

    But Jim that isnt really the point as someone who has just read this discussion (out of interest and to gain some insights in the background of that situation etc) am I curious how you think your ill tempered posts are perceived by people who read them because to be honest they paint you in a poor light not Arthur Bough who appeared more generally reasoned and calm (in his contribution here leaving aside the point in question), and your posts generally tend to be ill tempered which makes it hard to take your points seriously when reading some of these threads which may well be a shame I suspect.

  30. Llin Davies said,

    Quote of the Day:

    “As for Jim Denham the Internet is often referred to as the Global Village. In Jim denham I think we have found that village’s idiot.”


  31. Arthur Bough said,

    I did post a response, it did not appear. I am happy for a properly constituted democratic Workers Inquiry to inspect my computer’s log to verify that I did log in to your website when I said to prove it. But no doubt as whn the AWL first decided to delete my posts it will turn out to be a technical error.

    In fact, I did not say that Jim Denham “supported” the Georgian actions, I said that he “defended” those actions. There is a clear difference as I stated in citing the example of Shaw who defended the actions of the Stalinists and turned a blind eye to what was really going on. What I said was,

    “Again Georgia shows the complete bankruptcy of the Left. On the one hand the “idiot anti-imperialists” give a knee-jerk reaction to defend whichever side is in opposiiton to US imperialism, whilst the AWL gives an eqally knee-jerk reaction to side with the US and its allies, even where that means defending the murderous actions of Saakashvilli against the peoples of S. Ossetia.

    An independent working class position begins with an opposition to both a Russian or Georgian military solution, but a recognition of the need to pose a workers solution based on building the maximum working class unity. But neither the idiot anti-imperialist nor the AWL can give such a solution because both over recent years have stood on the ground not of proletarian internaitonalism, but bourgeois nationalism.”

    Denham does the same thing by quoting approvingly from David Clark,

    “By any reasonable measure, the impact of Russian policy has been uniquely destructive in generating political divisions in the caucuses…Whatever his faults, Saakashvili is no Milosevic – and wild Russian allegations of genocide have no independent support.”

    What is that if it is not to do exactly what I said to side with imperialism’s agent, and to seek to place responsibility on Russia? Later when I reffered to Georgian atrocities in Georgia Denham said that he did not believe what I said i.e. he did not beleive Georgia was committing such atrocities. What is that if it is not to defend Georgia in the same way that Shaw defended Stalninism by turning a blind eye?

  32. Jim Denham said,

    Bough: pathetic. You’ll see that I *do*, in fact challenge Bough to produce any evidence that I or anyone else on the left, “defend” (*not* “support) Georgian actions in South Ossetia. This liar (or lunatic – or both) has still to produce one single shred of evidence to back up his case. Certainly, the David Clark article doesn’t defend Georgian actions in SO – quite the opposite.

  33. Arthur Bough said,

    “Bough accused me of supporting Georgian aggression in South Ossetia. I have repeatedly asked him to back that accusation up with some evidence. He has continually failed to do so. I may be ill-tempered, but I don’t think having a good temper need extend to allowing people to tell lies or make insubstantiated accusations. I insist that people back up their claims with some evidence. If that makes me “ill tempered”, then so be it.”

    Your first line here shows that your accusation IS that I accuse you of being in favour of acts of aggression by Georgia. Where I have I said Jim Denham or the AWL is in favour of acts of aggression by Georgia. I haven’t. I have stated my opinion that repeatedly in such situations rather than coming down on the side of an independent working class solution to such situations the left ends up siding with one Camp or the other. One section of the Left in this instance gives a knee-jerk reaction to support Russia just as they did to support Milosevic, whilst the AWL sides with “democratic” imperialism as you did here, and as the AWL did over Kosovo.

    Now, you may believe that my opinion that in citing David Clark’s comments you have “defended” Georgia by painting its actions in the best possible colours, in denying that it was responsible for atrocities against the Ossetians is wrong, but to state such an opinion and to give such an explanation as to why that opinion is held cannot by any stretch of the imagination either in common sense, and certainly not under English Law be described as lying. I have repeatedly asked you to provide an argument as to why Clark’s arguments which all can read do not amount to siding with Georgia, but all you have done is to repeatedly assert that they do not.

    There is no basis for any reasonable purpose to respond to the statement of an opinion duly supported by a reason for making that opinion to be accused of lying, nor is that any reason for a reasonable person to respond to that opinion by such an accusation, by the use of abuse charges of suffering from syphilis and so on rather than to respond to that opinion with a reasoned argument as to why the evidence given in support of the opinion does not support it. But, your response has been precisly the former. As even Janine Booth has pointed out to you in the past your inclination to respond to other people’s opinions with such abuse rather than reasoned argument has not just been confined to your response to me, but it is no wonder that that is your response, because a look at the AWL’s website shows that that is now the way your organisation responds to all such criticism when it finds its back against the wall in defending its positions.

    You began your response to what I thought was my well measured initial comments by accusations of lying, which I have shown do not hold up. You have tried to turn my statement that your comments “defended” Georgia, sided with Georgia and sought to put the blame for the conflict on Russia rather than condemining both sides – which they clearly did – into an accusation that I am saying that you were in favour of Georgian atrocities agaisnt Ossetians. I have never made such a charge. Marxists do not, for example, “support” acts of individual terror, but they always “defend” even individual terrorists agas against the bourgeois state. They do so by explaining the oppressive nature of that state, placing the blame for such acts on it etc. Your comments in citing Clark, your later comments denying that Georgia had actually committed any acts of aggression agaisnt the Ossetians, your later comments in contrast asking me to comment on reports of Russian atrocities in Georgia – which unlike the AWL, which took over a week to come up with a form of words to rationalise its position, I opposed from the first few hours of the Russian troops entering Ossetia let alone Georgia – are entirely of that order. I repeat your position is the same as that of George Bernard Shaw who no one would accuse of “supporting” the murder of socialists, but who did “defend” the actions of Stalinism which was committing such actions, by turning a blind eye to what Stalinism was doing, and lending credulity to its arguments.

    You followed that up by repeated posts at regular intervals that raved for me to respond, but which I could not respond to because until I logged on to your site and that thread I did not even know existed. I explained that to you again, but again your response was hysterical accusations that I was lying about my reason for not responding. Given your comments above I too could have responded to your second accusation that I was a liar by the same kind of “Ill-temper” for which you are renowned. But, I didn’t. I told you that if you liked I could prove that I was not lying by the receipt from the gym showing where I was for much of the time, by the evidecne of witnesses who knew where I was. Again I am happy for an independent and properly constituted Workers Inquiry to look at my computer log to show that during the period you were raving for me to respond I was not logged on to your website, and could not know anything about your repeated frantic requests. I responded in calm tone as soon as I saw your posts and accusations of lying.

    Your response throughout has been not to respond by rational debate but through such ill-tempered abuse and charges of lying – statements which unlike statements of opinion actually are libellous under English Law. Further accusations that I lied about posting a response here which did not appear have also now been made along with your accusation that I am syphilitic. Yet, none of that leads me to respond with your normal ill-temper, abuse or wild accussations. Rather I do what I have done throughout simply state the facts, and make calm rational argument. That should be the way socialists respond to each other, but it seems something the AWL are now incapable of. I have responded by offering to allow a properly constituted Workers Inquiry to check my computer log to see that the accusation that I was lying about posting a comment here, which did not appear is false. I extend that offer to check that your accusation of lying about the reason for me not replying to your original requests for a response is also false. I make one proviso in making such an offer. As my computer contains private persoanl data not just about me, but also other family members such an Inquiry should first chack the Log and Audit trail for your site, because if it then showed that my post was deleted that would immediately resolve the issue, and secondly that such a Commission should also similarly check the AWL’s log and Audit Trail for their site to verify their statement that when they originally deleted my account that it was a technical error. I have nothing to hide or fear from such an Inquiry.

    When the Stalinists responded to Trotsky’s opinions in the 1930’s with abuse, and accusations of lying Trotsky responded with the Dewey Commission. I make exactly the same offer to today’s Stalinists, and I’m confident in a similar result.

  34. Arthur Bough said,

    Interesting also that my post of 5th September which did not appear when I posted it, is now there.

  35. modernity said,

    it probably got stuck in a moderation queue, if you’re going to post on blogs you might do well to read up on it.

  36. Arthur Bough said,

    Its Doesn’t Take Perry Mason

    Now it doesn’t take Perry Mason to solve this case.

    1. I wrote a post to the Shiraz Socialist site. The post did not appear.

    2. Shortly, after I wrote a blog the contents of which were essentially identical to the missing post, along with a statement that the original post had not appeared.

    I was accused of lying about this.

    ” …for the record: no comments from Bough have been banned from this blog, despite Denham’s “heat of the moment” threat to do so. Volty and I prevailed. So Bough’s claim to have been banned from here is either a genuine misunderstanding on his part, or (more likely) …a lie.” Post 25 at 5.19 p.m.
    3. Now, in what could this lie consist. Either I could have lied about actually writing such a post, or I could have lied that it did not appear.

    4. I could not have lied about writing the post because it now appears as post 22 at 11.01 a.m.

    5. I could conceivably have lied about submitting the post and it not appearing. But, despite the fact that Jim Denham continually refers to me as an idiot or loon – as indeed is his description for anyone apparently who he disagrees with – you would have to be extremely stupid to make such a lie when it could so easily be disproved by a simple viewing of the thread. This possibility is also ruled out for reasons I shall subsequently demonstrate.

    6. It is possible that I was simply mistaken about the post not appearing or it could have been a technical error or as Modernity now claims it could have been in a Moderation queue. If that is the case further questions arise. In respect of this latter why was this the case with the post when it has not been the case with any of the other posts I have made which have appeared immediately, for instance. Is that not a coincidence too far?

    7. If either I lied about the post not appearing or else I was mistaken about it not appearing then subsequent events are hard to explain. My blog written at 12.07 here is clearly referring to the post that now appears as Post 22. Given Jim Denham’s propensity to describe me as a liar with alacrity why when he read my blog did he not shout from the rooftops as is his wont that I am a liar, and that the proof is there for all to see at Post 22. Charlie Churro after all clearly read the blog, because at Post 24 at 5.16 p.m. he replies to Llin Davies who referenced the blog that it is “bollocks.”

    8. A few minutes later Charlie adds that I have not been banned and any such claim was probably a lie. But, this is at 5.19 p.m. a full 5 hours after post 22 is supposed to have been posted. Was it being moderated for 5 hours, were the people such as Charlie unaware that it was being moderated for that time? The question is why does Charlie simply say that I was probably lying, and not declare that to be the case. Why does he simply declare that I was probably lying rather than simply point to Post 22 to demonstrate that fact, after all anyone who read my blog, and Charlie clearly did because he decalred it to be “bollocks” could be under no confusion that Post 22 is the post referred to in my blog as that which had not appeared. After all, Charlie has not been shy anymore than Denham in branding me a liar, why miss a perfect opportunity to prove the point? The answer is simple Post 22 could not have been pointed to to prove the point, because it was not there to point to.

    Comrade, you have once again exposed the methods of the AWL for all to see.

  37. charliethechulo said,

    Ever heard of a “moderation queue”, Boffy? You really are a paranoid conspiracy nut, aren’t you? Just think: if we at ‘Shiraz’ were so determined to silence you, we’d simply have deleted all your stuff and banned you. What happened was that one of your posts got stuck in our moderation queue and we were a bit slow to release it. Exactly the same has happened to Modernity on more than one occasion.
    I note that you still cannot answer the substantive point about support for Georgia. So that makes “Boffy” a…liar.

  38. modernityblog said,

    even MY, lucid and wise comments get stuck on moderation, occasionally (not that I have been lucid or wise for a few years)

    it is the nature of WordPress, usually happens if you include in links (but it depends on how each blog has been setup for moderation, ie. my blog’s moderation settings might well be different from others on WP)

    but it is a rather typically political and paranoid outlook that assumes the very worse of others, and their actions

    I do wish that Bough will hold to his previous promise to avoid Shiraz Socialist?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: