Too flipping hot. Better turn on A/C to make inside of house cooler and outside hotter. Am I missing something?
Pedantic comment. ( Heat causes pedantry - scientific fact) Wouldn't the people on the train have to breathe OUT??? If they breathe in, they expand and you will never get into the carriage. And if they all had garlic for dinner and they breathed OUT, do you still want to get in?
On the other hand, heat also causes driving standards to drop (if that is possible). The girl in the Lancer with P plates wasn't taught that if you are doing a U-turn, you give way to EVERYBODY! And don't start me on flicking your ciggie out the window on Total Fire Ban days.
Sorry, it's all too much. Stick with the train, Lefty. I'm off for a coffee frappe. That will cool me down whilst revving me up. Am I missing something?
Whoops I forgot. The throat virus lasts 5 weeks. At least it does if it started at a karaoke machine singing "Am I ever gonna see your face again". So you have 5 weeks of irritability ahed of you!
"Wouldn't the people on the train have to breathe OUT??? If they breathe in, they expand and you will never get into the carriage.
That's a very good point. I meant they needed to suck their guts in, but as you have pointed out, what I did say simply did not make sense.
I blame the heat.
Are all Australians assholes or are you a special case.
What part of the laws do you think do not apply to you.
And how is it that ll we here about is drought drought drought?
Larry, all Australians are not ASSholes.
We're Arseholes, mate, awright?
Warning: flying monkeys at 3 o'clock.
Aww, having a go at the petty-minded vindictive twerp who'd book someone for having the rear wheel over a deserted pedestrian crossing for fifteen seconds IN THE MIDDLE OF A TORRENTIAL DOWNPOUR has really hit Timmeh hard. He's a true champion of the working man; a softy at heart.
Still, that post is a little difficult to take from a man like Blair who regularly publishes people's photographs and identities online, and tries to cost them employment, just because he doesn't like their political views...
27 visitors online! The attack dogs have been dispatched. Captain Conservative has overcome the Kryptonite Kurse and is back on the job.
Uh, surely you're the one whose double standards are being exposed?
Uh, Steve, if his double-standards are the same, what does that make it? Triple standards?
FUCK TIM BLAIR. HE'S A FUCKING MORON.
There, my whinge for the day.
I have to say, he does have one point: where's all the venting? Sure, once you've been reminded of Tim Blair's existence it's tough for anything else to register on the Irritometer, but it was quiet before he got involved.
Maybe you lot take the heat more good-naturedly than I do.
Nah, the heat has made me livid, and I'm taking it out on people who don't realise that walking should be bound by similar rules of etiquette to driving:
* Keep left, for a start
* Walk in a straight line, so people can predict where you're headed
* And make a decision: you're either walking or dying. If it's the former, hop the fuck to it; the latter, just stagger off and do it out of people's way so they can get where they're going without having to dodge and weave.
There. I feel better already.
Thank you Ant, people walking all over the effing footpath give me the absolute irrits.
And people walking 2 or more abreast get that crowd mentality where no one in the group will yield for on-coming pedestrians.
I no longer drop the shoulder to avoid contact but mutter, a la Family Guy, Bring it on!!!
People who stop walking when they get on escalators (or even worse, stand two abreast) can go and fornicate themselves too.
Just one thing: How does a Budget Lawyer stack up against a Begging Blogger?
As someone at Blair noted, you're copping some bad karma youself! What naughty have you done JS?
Why have you published his photo and name? I don't care for the history between you and Tim - just your answer.
... budget journalist Timmeh Blair ...
He's more ideological bantamweight than budget journalist.
As I clicked on the link to the comment thread of Timmeh's post I asked myself a question: how long will it take for one of the flying monkeys to make a tenuous connection between your post and climate change hypocrisy?
Answer: 11 comments.
For a lawyer, you sure object to the law a lot.
Pushing up against the boundaries of the legal system is actually the mark of a good lawyer EP.
mondo - there is a big difference between using the law effectively to the advantage of your client, and whinging about the modest application of the law against oneself.
JS whinges about music copyright law, but demands no-one touch HIS photos.
JS whinges about parking laws, but demands people respect his personal space.
JS whinges about breahces of his own privacy, but publishes the name and photo of fellow doing his job. How dare he do his job!?!?! For that he must be publicly shamed and have bad karma (lol) thrown at him. Pathetic.
JS whinges about censorship at other blogs, but then censors his own.
JS whinges about blogs copying and referring to his work, but uses other sites work without permission, including their own bandwidth.
When did Blair "[reveal] that he is now uneasy about the publishing of someone's full name and photograph online linked to criticism of them"?
There, there: take your medicine li'l one ...
Good point, Mondo.
Next time I'm booked for illegal parking, I'll just say I'm a law student.
re comment # 11 at Blair:
Hope you bought your carbon- offsets for that earth raping plane trip, Jewemy?
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 03 17 at 10:02 PM •
What's with the Jewemy?
“JS whinges about music copyright law, but demands no-one touch HIS photos”
Erm, anyone else thinking these two things are, at best, tenuously linked?
“JS whinges about parking laws, but demands people respect his personal space”
Just wondering how Jeremy breaking a parking law breaches someone’s personal space? I can only assume by how badly you’ve phrased this particular argument you’re referring to the photo and name being posted?
“JS whinges about censorship at other blogs, but then censors his own”
Care to actually give an example, Peterm?
dear god, please don't encourage more lunacy from this guy.
By the way, the parking officer wasn't "doing his job". If I was obstructing the crossing (which I wasn't: the back wheel was just touching it, and in any case there was no foot - or, for that matter road - traffic in the vicinity), then give me a warning and ask me to move the car. He did no such thing; he came out, started swearing, and took the rego.
That's not "a man doing his job". That's a petty little tyrant taking advantage of the fact that he knows the rental car company will just pay the fine and pass it on, and no-one who doesn't even live in Queensland is going to fight a damn parking fine up there. It's someone who must already have been in a bad mood, trying to spread the pain around.
He's a git, and his petty spitefulness has cost me a parking fine.
While we're on the subject, what's Timmeh's excuse for publishing names and other details of bloggers just because he disagrees with their political views? They've hardly cost him anything.
Edited By Siteowner
By the way, Peter, you've commented here many times and been treated respectfully. So I was a little surprised by your spiteful encouragement of Blair's pitiful old "budget" slur. Still - about what I expect from the turds who frequent that place.
Peter M moonlights as a self-appointed hall monitor over there, Jeremy. The first time I commented at Timmeh's blog, he nearly pissed himself with excitement when he was able to jump up and down screeching: "Ooh, ooh, THIS BLOKE COMMENTS OVER AT LEFTY'S SITE!"
I just want to know whether Peter wears a sash at his computer.
Clearly TB's no stickler for the law:
http://timblair.spleenville.com/...ives/
003264.php
just want to know whether Peter wears a sash at his computer.
Gold.
DeanL
Well-spotted. This comment seems rather apt in the cicumstances.
When the patrol officer walks up to your car on a traffic stop, he can size you up as a good sort or a troublemaker, evaluate your past record, evaluate the magnitude of your offense, and decide whether you get a ticket or not. I.e., the officer can distinguish between "the letter and the spirit of the law." The cameras don't: you just get a ticket, regardless.
Jeremy,
What is the point of publishing his name and photo? Wouldn't your vent be just as effective without the name and photo? Do you intend for your readers to make use of them in some way?
With all due respect, Mr Lefty, I must admit to some consternation that one who purportedly works in the legal profession would have so little regard in the first instance for the laws of the road; secondly, for the ethics involved in "naming and shaming" this individual (no matter how wronged you might feel, and I do understand how you might feel thus); and finally, the possible legal implications of engaging in behaviour that may be reasonably perceived as harassing, intimidating, overbearing, bullying or physically or emotionally threatening -- specifically the fact that you "Use a telecommunication service supplied by a carrier in such a way as would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all circumstances, offensive."
(An abstract from Section 85ZE of the Commonwealth Crimes Act)
Just saying, Lefty, that's all...
"Use a telecommunication service supplied by a carrier in such a way as would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all circumstances, offensive."
So what you are saying is that Tim Blair is breaking the law.
"What is the point of publishing his name and photo? Wouldn't your vent be just as effective without the name and photo? Do you intend for your readers to make use of them in some way?"
No, I intend for him to one day google his name and realise that people he treats like shit think he's a prick. Perhaps he'll have a second thought about being a petty arsehole.
As for Blairville's "MentalFloss" - don't be stupid. This had nothing to do with "the laws of the road". I wasn't in any one's way, or blocking the crossing, or anything. A technical infringement doesn't have to be punished just because some vindictive nob wants to feel big.
And there's no way in hell the above post could be considered a breach of s85ZE, Blairville armchair lawyering notwithstanding.
There's nothing more pathetic than the rag-tag bunch of know-nothings that orbit Blair in the desperate hope that some of his wit will legitimise their immature rantings and predjudice.
Unfortunately for them, however, when engaging in their excited little sorties away from the Blair Green Zone they stand exposed as the petty minded fucktards that they really are.
Yeah but tell us what you really think of them Mondo.
The Blairville commenters remind me of a scene I once witnessed at the zoo, in the baboon enclosure.
The whole bunch of these primates were sitting around thoroughly bored, scratching themselves and lazily swatting flies away from their faces and pink anuses. Occasionally one would get up and make a noise, but that was all... until the zookeeper hurled in a few slabs of stinking meat.
In these situations Jeremy, you have to ask yourself, "what would Marcus Einfeld do?".
Ant, are you the fly or the stinking meat?
Ant, are you the fly or the stinking meat?
That, my friends, is why the Blairville commenters have a well-deserved reputation for wit.
LMFAO "Find lost loves" ad at the bottom of the comments. Sheesh, you can almost feel the love amongst the comments..bargepole love at its best.
God I hate parking officers
Haha, what's with all the self-righteous voices coming out of Timmeh's readers arses?
Holier-than-thou morons.
Mr Lefty, I think a bit of remedial reading of road regulations may be in order. It's not merely illegal to park on a pedestrian crossing; it's illegal to park less than a specified distance from a pedestrian crossing.
This is because parked cars block the vision of oncoming drivers, thus putting pedestrians at risk of being run over. Presumably such vision-impeding effects are exacerbated by monsoonal rain.
Sure, the parking officer was being a jerk. But he might have saved someone's life.
I want to vent about people venting about the heat in Melbourne where it is currently 20C. Here (Darwin) it's 28C (and feels like 32), and that's relatively cool.
Fucking hell, you need to fumigate this place after a monkey infestation.
Mr Pundit, I was not blocking anyone's view of the non-existent pedestrians who weren't running about (because, as previously noted, it was a fricking monsoon). How can I be sure? Because it was a one-way road and I was on the far side of the pedestrian crossing; any hypothetical oncoming driver would have a full view of the crossing.
So, sorry mate, but your pathetic attempt to demonstrate how a man with whom you disagree politically PUT PEOPLE'S LIVES AT RISK fails at the first hurdle.
Man, that really must make you doubt yourself. "If he's right about that... maybe he's right about everything!" Poor Mr Pundit, and other assorted Blairville cranks, needing to prove their opponents to be bad people in order to buttress their political beliefs. How fragile must that house of cards be!
I had to laugh at this genuinely funny comment by "Stuntman Bob" at Timmeh's blog:
Iain; Hall now has masturbation fodder for the next few days.
Gold.
Oh, to my "drop in, leave an abusive personal attack and disappear again" new visitors, perhaps you could take a look at this post and give us some assistance in understanding just what the hell is wrong with you. I'm genuinely curious.
PS And "Ash" - yes. I am removing the abusive posts now, and the ones from you complaining that I'm removing the abusive posts. Don't like it? Don't leave a post abusing me.
Personally, I think you should leave their idiotic rantings up. The abuse tells us much more about the writers than it does about the target.
True, but I don't think there's a huge amount more we need to know about the writers... and I don't have any intention of giving particular weirdo stalkers a pulpit.
And they've dragged this thread off-topic plenty already.
Sounds all right. Next time I park in front of a fire hose to go to my favorite watering hole to have a few and a bag of chips (and, if it's my lucky day, a quicky with the barmaid in the back room) and I find that some b*stard put a ticket behind the windscreen wiper I'll just publish his name and picture on the innernet because I'm a budget lawyer, and as a lawyer I'm way above the law as opposed to the rest of the peasants.
Have you tried to explain your predicament to a judge? I'm sure he'll be most understanding, you being kind of a colleague and all.
You know I think Tim Blair can be a tosser at times. I think his mob can be creepy and vindictive.
But you know what?
This time he and his mob have you bang to rights on this one.
Drop the photo of not the article and replace it with one apologising for lapsing into hypcrisy. Blame it on a rush to blood to the head or something.
Otherwise you've pretty much vindicated Tim and his lot for every time they've successfully put a lefty out of a job for reporting to their employers what they post outside of working hours.
(BTW I don't post here regularly but I am a longtime lurker and I have posted some before.)
Mikael, you're an idiot. The situation here is completely different. Leaving a car for an extended period of time in front of a fire hose just because you're lazy is very different to parking next to a pedestrian crossing for ten seconds in the rain to get suitcases into it. One does put people's lives at risk; one doesn't. One is entirely reasonable; one isn't.
Tssk, what hypocrisy? When have I ever objected to someone naming and shaming someone for doing something petty and vindictive to them? Blair trying to punish people for disagreeing with him by attacking their unrelated employment is entirely different to my identifying someone who used his employment to be a vindictive prick. I'm not unmasking him; I'm just noting who it was who was such an unprofessional, abusive twat.
The two are completely different.
And I'm going to be deleting any further comments from Blairville visitors who aren't here to partake in the on-topic discussion, but are instead here to try to score some personal point against me. Not interested, guys. Go away.
Again, I'm not a "Blairville" visitor. I've been reading your blog for 2 years and you know it.
But you will (for the 4th time) delete my comment anyway because you can't stand people disagreeing with you.
I thought that the kids who could give shit but couldn't take it learnt better by about year 5. I see there's still a few children hopping about who think they are above the whole "having to take it too" thing.
You're a pathetic excuse for a human being, Lefty.
You're a coward,
A dullard,
A mental midget
A whiny child
An attention whore
A liar.
Ant,
You said:
"The Blairville commenters remind me of a scene I once witnessed at the zoo, in the baboon enclosure."
What were you doing in the baboon enclosure?
Those are the sort of content-free personal attacks you waded in with yesterday, Yobbo, and I don't care how long you've been reading this blog I don't have any obligation or inclination to let you (or others) use it just to abuse me.
There's the door.
OH, I love Timmeh's new attempt to try to show me as being a hypocrite for putting the ticketer's name and photo on the blog.
Step 1 - I was critical of Eastland for making its employees park away from the centre at christmas.
Step 2 - I was critical of some dickhead airport officer for unreasonably booking me in the circumstances described and published his name and photo.
See the hypocrisy? See it? SEE IT!!!
ant, from memory, I think I said "hi" to you in a friendly way. And I don't think the Blair posters had any trouble knowing from where you hailed. Is it wrong to direct someone to other comments of yours? lol at sash - good one.
and lefty, "budget lawyer" was a very low blow, but still a little "haha" from a bystanders point of view.
Your excuse for publishing his name re google is barely understandable (I think you and blair are the only ones I know who google their names regularly), but not his photo. That is going over the line.
btw, you haven't said where the next nearest park was. But not getting a bit more wet was the priority I guess.
Yobbo
What a horrible spiteful person.
Your comments say so much about you as a person than they do about the people who you choose to direct your vile insults against.
Andrew Bolt's now taken a bead, and a slightly more serious note. I think you may want to dump a few comments, Jeremy.
I think not, James.
And a note of warning to Bolt visitors planning on reproducing the Blairville infestation above: don't bother. I'll just be deleting it.
I had to laugh at this genuinely funny comment by "Stuntman Bob" at Timmeh's blog:
Iain; Hall now has masturbation fodder for the next few days.
Gold.
Found it funny as well Ant :).
I bet these people jumping to the defence of the parking inspector would be pissed if one of those wankers stuck a local council revenue raising fine on their car.
Ah yes. Mr Logic's here. The trail leads back to Bolt. Nice of him to direct some traffic your way Jeremy.
This is getting pathetic beyond belief:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heralds...awyers_tantrum/
It's all part of the RWDB groupthink food chain.
41 Visitors Online! Blairites and Boltites everywhere. We now just need a policeman to say: "Move on...nothing to see here...on your way..."
Of course they'll take the opportunity to say: "typical Leftists, whaddya expect, we're so much better than that scum". Wait for it...
What does this say about Bolt? He uses a perceived pettiness on Jeremy's part (ignoring any of the mitigating factors Jeremy has put forward) to conduct a personal campaign against someone using a News Ltd Blog.
Bolt doesn't disclose that Jeremy just happens to run a Blog crticising Bolt's journalistic output.
Bolt sports the ultimate in glass jaws. Unbelievably pathetic.
Dean L, could you kindly elucidate those mitigrating factors for me? I've read Jeremy's piece and I don't see any.
Jeremy on privacy:
“It’s probably worth reminding people about the fact that if they’re on the electoral roll it’s very easy for someone armed with their name to find their address ... It is never a good idea to turn someone’s (lawful) private life into a public issue ... I’m not generally in favour of people’s real identities being exposed ... there’s some danger in having your own real details publicised so every nutter out there can see them.”
But give him one parking ticket and Jeremy will reveal your name, face, employer and job to the world.
But J, what I'm dying to know is, has Malcolm been in touch? And will you be making that complaint about his conduct? I reckon you ought to.
NC,
Jeremy has said the guy abused him and that he hadn't actually committed the offence. I happen to believe him but, as I've already said, I don't believe he should have posted the guy's photo or name.
You know that Jeremy is highlighting an instance of one of the grey areas with minor infringements. And, admittedly, taking the opportunity to exact some petty revenge. But the self-righteous, sanctimonious carry-on from the Bolt-alikes and Blair-alikes is laughable.
I'm trying to figure out why Tim felt the need to cut and paste part of his post here. It's okay, Tim, you do have some readers. They probably saw it over at your place.
It's like a school yard crush, isn't it?
I think he's just following you around because he can't reach through the computer and pull your pigtails before running away and complaining about Lefty-germs.
When you wished Timmeh well in his recovery after his cancer op recently, Jeremy, Timmeh came here and personally thanked you and said he won't forget it.
Now you're getting it, including EIGHT freaky updates on his blog about you. He sure didn't forget it.
The guy has a Jekyll & Hyde personality.
True. He's now claiming that the recent GrodsCast (I don't care what The Editor is calling it) has "cancer jokes", so presumably he feels no longer bound by that promise. Petty details like his breaking it yesterday, before that podcast was recorded, and the fact that no-one actually makes light of his condition, and in fact there is an expressed hope in his speedy recovery, are presumably not important.
I generally try to think the best of people, particularly those with whom I disagree, but Andy and Timmy have repeatedly shown me that, scratch the surface, and they're nothing more than bullies.
And let's get the fact's straight, hey? We (I) made one colostomy bag joke and zero cancer jokes. How is that "cancer jokes"?
Also, I specifically congratulated Timmeh on his apparently full recovery in episode one or two of GrodsThink (I don't care what Jeremy calls it.)
Tim said he wouldn't forget your expression of sympathy. Not lifetime immunity from poking fun at your petty and hypocritical tendencies.
Don't fret too much about your the impending demise of your law "career". You can always get a job as a compassionate council ranger.
I think you'll find you called it the GrodsCast when you did the first two episodes, too.
Score: "Absolute Disgrace" 1; The Editor 0.
"Don't fret too much about your the impending demise of your law "career"."
Don't worry, Mr Tiger, I won't. You might be surprised to learn it, but the abusive attention of people widely-regarded as crackpots - like Blair, Bolt or Landeryou - isn't the career limiter you'd probably like it to be.
I used to think it would be - which is why I originally, until I was spitefully unmasked, tried to blog anonymously - but that fear turns out to have been unfounded.
The podcast's name has been officially changed by deedpoll and it takes great offence at you continuing to call it by its old name.
I will always know it as GrodsCast. It can change its name, but it can never change who it is inside.
Gee, do you think maybe Timmeh's personality had a bit to do with his needing the "cancer operation" in the first place?
Sounds like his body's rejecting HIM to me.
I've never heard cancer being linked to being a fuckwit. No, his cancer was just bad luck, for which he deserved the sympathy that anyone who gets cancer deserves. And I was happy to extend that sympathy.
It is simply not fair or reasonable to use his cancer against him.
Likewise his tragic diagnosis with Irredeemably Nasty Piece Of Work Syndrome (INPOWS). Is it his fault that he's Australian blogging's most contemptible bully? NO! Why is everyone so mean to him about it?
Seeing Timbo get his knickers in such a knot over something everyone should do (sticking it to over zealous bully's who are parking inspectors) has been great to watch. How many updates is it now?
The attitude parking inspectors/revenue protection officers show needs to be brought into the public spotlight more and more.
The is no recourse for their bullshit. Yeah, you can take the matter to court, it is always your word against theirs. They are full of shit and I have witnessed them on more than one occasion mark tires then slap a fine on a windscreen straight away.
When confronted with it they shit their pants and lie.
Keep with the updates Tim. Everyone needs a laugh at your expense here.
Are you pissed that you had to fight Bolt instead of ******** you so desire?
Edited By Siteowner
Anyone want to put money on Tim making it to ten updates to that post? C'mon Tim, it's only a fraction more absurd. You can do it!
He won't now, Jeremy.
I never thought I'd see the day when so many people get so upset over an outrageous, petty parking fine and stick up for a bloody revenue protection officer. Cats and dogs will be living peacefully together next.
I mean, that is what Jeremy's original post was about wasn't it. Out of control, power hungry rent-a-cops who love to give fines?
Again the Blair and Boltites and blinded by the original issue and are brainwashed by B & B: the bloody Bobsey Twins.
This is an awesome exercise in rightygroup think as pointed out elsewhere.
I hope there are at least ten updates.
NINE UPDATES. Good grief. Let's aim for TEN, Timmeh.
The proposition that a regional airport parking attendant is "a petty tyrnant" or deserves public humiliation and vilification on the internet by a middle-class holiday visitor to one of the richest and most exclusive tourists spots in Australia, is as preposterous as it is ignorant.
This man (and if he should ever hear about or read this blog I apologise to him on behalf of all those people here who in commenting on the original post have contributed to the careless shredding of his dignity) has a job that involves zero managerial role, obligatory outdoors work - even in "monsoon" conditions - dealing with vehicles, security and safety issues and tired, impatient commuters and drivers.
His pay, conditions, job satisfaction and security would most likely be a fraction of that enjoyed by most other people who have commented on this post not to mention Jeremy himself.
The universal lack of empathy extended to Mr Malcolm Gavey is the most outrageous and only really important aspect of this self-indulgent, utterly meaningless blog blood sport enacted here.
You're all dancing, prancing and punch throwing over his beaten form.
Absolute rubbish. I criticised him for being unnecessarily unpleasant. He was. It wasn't part of his job that he needed to treat me the way he did (and he wasn't a "parking attendant" either).
His "beaten form" indeed. Your comment is so filled with exaggerations and misrepresentations regarding the post as to be utterly meaningless, and to finally reveal that your recent contributions here are not in good faith at all. You're here purely to stir.
Here is Malcolm Garvey's addressI hope Jeremy and others have the the decency and guts to apologise to him.
* * * * * *
Edited By Siteowner
That is beyond contemptible. Publishing someone's home address in relation to conduct at work?
You are banned permanently, Scarlett.
Huh
that's friggen unfair, Lefty. I'm always the one getting banned and now you're permanently banning someone else? Why does she deserve a superior punishment than i do.
This claim that I've published "addresses of bloggers" with whom I disagree ... got any evidence?
You might win an update out of it.
Publishing a home address is totally different from publishing his name, photo and work address, thus allowing anyone on the Internet to (probably) find his home address .....
You're all dancing, prancing and punch throwing over his beaten form.
Shut up scarlett. Idiots like this guy enjoy their work for the msot part. that's why they go into it. Msot people would rather starve than live off ill gotten gains like traffic dicks.
BB may well be right in the detail, but there is something everyone appreciates in these non-criminal matters of the law - their occasional judicious application.
It can create a good deal of good-will when someone takes a flexible approach to minor matters. A "you know you can't do that, and next time I will book you" gets the message across just as effectively as a ticket. In this case that might've have been a wise move if this was a one-way street. Sure, it was an infringment of the traffic laws, but parked on the far-side of the crossing, the car did not impede anyone's view of pedestrians and so was not a safety issue - an infringement in the letter of the law, but one that could have been treated judiciously in the spirit of the law. For some reason there's nothing that gets most of our backs up like officious parking officers.
That said, I'm not sure posting his name and photo was a particulary fine piece of judgement.
Bad calls all round I'd say. Maybe it was the heat?
I bet old Nuts'N'Gum's legs practically went from Y to T with excitement on this one!
Hey has Bolty barged into studios uninvited screaming abuse about people lately? If you know share!
I can't see where I said that, Tim. I can't think of any examples of you listing someone's home address. I can think of plenty of examples of you finding out people's unrelated jobs and attacking them through those; likewise through people's personal lives. Both thoroughly dickheadish things to do.
Where did I accuse you of publishing addresses? If you point it out, I'll amend it.
And sorry, BB, but I already pointed out that this thread wasn't to be used to try to give me half-arsed armchair legal advice. OK? I have precisely no interest in discussing the incident in question any further. It's been thrashed into the ground. I will deal with the matter myself. If you want to partake in a discussion which is NOT about trying to accuse me of breaking the law, by all means, feel free. Otherwise, go away. In the meantime, those posts dedicated to attacking me personally, deleted.
Note to everyone else: I have no interest in discussing the parking thing any further. It wasn't even the point of the post. Try reading the actual post again. If you want to do some venting of your own... well, the moment's probably passed now. I'll do a venting thread #2 next time it's hot.
BB,
It must be nice to be you.
Cut any public spending you don't believe you are ever likely to need.
Did you know that one of the major areas of Legal Aid cutbacks at the moment is Independent Representation for Children in Family Law matters.
You know, someone to protect them and ensure their best interests are advocated for in an adversarial system
F*** the kids, eh. Sponging little welfare bastards.
By way of clarification, my post above is in relation to now deleted comments by BB regarding Legal Aid and HREOC being funding for sponging welfare types that should be cut.
Anyone who looks up the traffic guy's address is a fucking moron. I share Jeremy's annoyance with the dude's unprofessionalism, but I have no desire to go seeking his home address.
You idiot, Scarlett.
NOG - can't you read? I am NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING IT FURTHER. There is no part of the post that is about the legality of parking partly on a pedestrian crossing; whether the parking officer was able to book me or not had nothing to do with whether or not he was a dickhead for doing so in those circumstances, and in the manner he did, which was the entirety of my complaint against him. There was no part of that post which suggested that I was in the slightest bit interested in having a legal debate with Blairville visitors on what the freaking road rules might be. And obviously the only reason they - and you - are so fascinated by the subject is as a means to attack me. If the law was technically broken, so what? I'll pay the fine. Doesn't make the actions of Mr Gavey any less mean-spirited and petty.
There are thus two reasons why I'll be deleting any more discussion of the road rules.
1. It's off topic: the post was never about whether Gavey could book me.
2. It's a transparent means of attacking me personally, as Messrs Blair and Bolt have demonstrated, and I frankly don't see why I should give you a forum for that.
I have no interest in discussing the parking thing any further.
Then it would be a very boring comments section. Ok, he was rude to you, but what did you do to cause him to be rude to you?
That's the point you seem to be missing, lefty. you just wanna discuss the fact he was rude to you and not why. It's very fustrating.
Delete away Lefty.
This is for you only anyway.
********************************
Edited By Siteowner.
Cheers, I will.
If you want to address me personally, on a matter I've already explained is off-topic, send an email. Don't write out another comment for me to delete.
"Then it would be a very boring comments section."
Why? Discussion of the issues raised in the post at hand is fine. Since this post was never about the legality of parking on a crossing, the flooding of this comment thread with attempts to attack me as to whether I'd committed an infringement or not is completely off-topic.
Perhaps you might try reading the post again and contributing according to what that post was actually about.
The flooding is also in violation of the "dickhead" rule, since clearly the only reason the Blair and Bolt visitors are suddenly so interested in the road rules is that they think they can attack me personally by "proving" that Mr Gavey was permitted to book me. (Thereby entirely missing the point, since it was about the way and the circumstances in which he did it.)
Come on, be serious. You can't honestly be suggesting that this fascination by Blair and Bolt on the topic has anything at all to do with a concern for Mr Gavey's well-being. They think it's a stick with which to beat me personally - hence their efforts to try to link it to my job, despite that having nothing whatsoever to do with the post or the blog.
Any way you can close the comments box for this post, Jeremy? It's the only way to stop these twats from commenting, since they seem to have little else to do than constantly harrass and badger.
Gee. Thank god I'm not a right-wing cunt.
--"Any way you can close the comments box for this post"
Bron, our new censorship King.
--"Gee. Thank god I'm not a right-wing cunt"
Bron, proving Leftist abuse and swearing at opponents is just a finger click away.
"Then it would be a very boring comments section. Ok, he was rude to you, but what did you do to cause him to be rude to you?
That's the point you seem to be missing, lefty. you just wanna discuss the fact he was rude to you and not why. It's very fustrating." - RA
That mises the point. It's obviously the guys job to issue parking tickets, but not to scream abuse. The punishment is the ticket, not an earful.
"It's obviously the guys job to issue parking tickets,"
I don't think it is, actually. I believe that's a small part of his job, and one he can exercise at his discretion.
Lefty is now in breach of his own censorship codes.
It was recently covered on this blog as to what constitutes deletion, and it certainly did not include relevant, topical posts.
(the definition given was "dickhead" posts, or plain abuse)
Lefty is now in censorship mode.
All non-group think people, it might be time to find another blog methinks.
Where free exchange of views IS tolerated.
Where free exchange of views IS tolerated.
Like Blair's baboon pit?
Yeah, repeatedly attacking the blog owner regarding road rules that weren't the topic of the post is both "relevant" and "topical", and all about the "free exchange of views". It's not in any way being a dickhead.
Anyone who's visited this blog - WITHOUT the intention of dropping in, abusing someone here, and disappearing again - knows perfectly well that this blog has a robust commenting community, and dissent and disagreement on issues is welcome and encouraged. (NOG knows that, too, it's just that he got caught up in the rush to try to prove me some kind of evil law-breaking fiend and consequently found several long comments of his deleted, which he resents.)
It's simple. If you're not being a dickhead, your post will be fine.
HOWEVER - and this is for NOG - if you have a question regarding commenting policy, send it to me via email (mrlefty AT gmail.com) rather than clogging up the thread itself with arguments about what should be on the thread itself.
By the way, considering where NOG has come from, it's beyond hilarious that he can castigate people for "leftist abuse" with a straight face.
Ant,
Not sure what you're on about.
I've been here commenting for a couple of months actually.
Ask Lefty.
And I was originally here about a year ago, a bit more. (Lefty was centre-left at that stage, approx. Came back and found him a Greens voter).
Jeremy says that deletion is the punishment for comments on "road rules that weren't the topic of the post", but he fails to note that he then MADE rules partly the issue when he tried to minimise the trangression by stating his wheel was barely touching the crossing.
Now, that makes it not just an issue of Gavey's alleged abuse, but also about the application of the law.
And the road rules link provided (and deleted by Lefty) clearly provided an answer to that, blowing his case outta the water.
Now it's just the manner of Gavey's behaviour under the spotlight, cause Lefty's attempts to state he was barely touching the line are now VOID.
There are 2 distinct issues here, the “parking violation” and the subsequent publishing of a name and photo on this blog.
I can see the point Jeremy’s critics are making on the second issue although I believe they have been over the top in their condemnation.
What I would like to address is the first issue and more specifically, the reaction of his critics.
Imagine, if you will, that this discussion was taking place not in the comments section of a blog but around a bbq that you and your friends are enjoying.
So, there you are, talking with a mate who tells you of his experience with an overly officious parking officer. The circumstances are just as Jeremy has related.
You all stand around, beers in hand, nodding in agreement at your friend’s assessment of the parking officer.
I’m sure it’s easy to visualise – comments like “what a prick” and “bloody parking nazis” would be par for the course.
Then imagine someone else at the bbq – maybe someone like NOG – starts banging on how you have acted illegally, it’s all your fault, you could have put other lives in danger, the guy was just trying to earn a crust, it’s the law, etc etc ad nauseam.
Now imagine the collective response, sotto voce, of the others gathered around the bbq.
WANKER.
Anyone who thinks that having their anonymous comments on a privately run blog deleted is an issue of free speech/censorship, has rocks in their heads.
The very nature of the anonymity of the vast majority of posters puts the blog owner in a very strong position to do as he/she pleases with the comments made.
I'd only modify that approach if people were courageous enough to comment under their real names.
That's certainly my verdict in relation to NOG.
His ramblings above are nothing more than a transparent attempt to attack someone he doesn't like. No amount of reminding him that Lefty accepts the technical illegality of his actions will deter NOG - he just keeps on banging about the same issue, over and over and over. As though each time he points out that the parking was technically illegal he has revealed some stunning truth that nobody else had considered (except for the last ten times he made exactly the same point).
NOG - you're a troll. You're here only to attack Lefty and nothing else. This much is crystal clear from the mind-numbingly stupid and aggressive posts you've left above covering an irrelevant issue.
I have no idea why Lefty has tolerated your obvious attemps to insult and abuse him for this long. Personally I would be delighted if he banned your sorry arse.
Jesus, NOG, let it go! You aren't "blowing out of the water" my remark that I was barely touching the crossing; it is still true. And it was never presented as evidence that Gavey couldn't book me, so ranting on about the road rules continues to be off-topic.
Take a deep breath and find something else to talk about. You're boring everyone senseless.
I only advocated closing the comments because of idiots like you, NOG, coming back time and time again with the same repetitive bullshit, and because no matter how many times the blog owner rightly asked you to stop it (you've made your point, he doesn't agree - get over it) you still persist in coming back and annoying the bejesus out of everyone.
Talk about flogging a dead horse!
Oh, and I'm not a King, I'm a Queen. Kiss my arse.
Update:
Boring wanker
Yeah, what skeptic said.
I can't believe this.
I deleted it. Not only is "onelove" determined to ignore my warning not to keep going off-topic, he or she couldn't even get my name right. (There's no "s" on the end of my surname, mate.)
Let's have a look at the "tolerance" exhibited by the intolerant.
"Wanker"
(Skeptic)
"Idiot"
(Bron)
"Troll"
(Mondo Rock)
(Mondo, who is not just incorrect in his ridiculous choice of insult as I've been here months, has also had a history of abusing others with whom he cannot agree with. I've certainly noticed this from reading past Anon Lefty and seeing how Mondo treats RA and others).
Certainly, there is NO Leftist abuse in blogging at all, is there.
No way.
This is enforced group think for sure.
It's either quit, or be insulted.
Lefty has still yet to abuse (I think), and good on him. I try to do the same.
But look at his hangers-on. You guys are fooling yourselves. No wonder you're the laughing stock on Tim Blair's blog.
You occupy a tiny, tiny space in a very big internet world. And boy, don't you feel like big fishes when being opposed in your small little pond.
No wonder you're the laughing stock on Tim Blair's blog.
Well, that's it: I'll never sleep soundly again.
NOG - FFS grow up! Wanker is a great Aussie expression, used many time over at Tim's blog.
And it is entirely appropriate because, lets face it, you are being a wanker.
Skeptic,
Following in your great arbitrary judgement, well, let's see, you are being a complete & utter knob.
Great Aussie vernacular, of course.
....my point being, Skeptic, it's a pity about the insults, isn't it?
What will they achieve? Nothing, really.
Excellent. Maybe we can all move on from them, then.
Anyway, throughout, Lefty has avoided this one:
***Do you consider it, in hindsight, to have been a momentary lapse in judgement, a heat-of-the-moment mistake, to have published that guys name & IMAGE online?
LMAO - apparently calling someone a troll, wanker or idiot is showing intolerance and is, wait for it, enforced groupthink - WTF???
Jeremy, please do not delete these stupid - oops, there I go again - comments from NOG. they are so funny.
Next time I do something that pisses someone off and they yell abuse at me (I'm thinking here of road rage) I'll shout right back at them
"Stop being so intolerant and using enforced groupthink."
If the first comment wasn't, the follow-up response would be
WANKER
Seriously NOG, just sit back and read out loud what you have written. I think you should then look in the mirror and repeat after me ...
NOG, you complete dickhead, when has anyone here ever claimed to be 'tolerant'?
What does tolerance have to do with anything? Why is it even relevant to the current issue i.e. attempts by fucktards from Blair's blogs to damage Lefty's personal and professional life?
If you can't grasp the difference between calling someone rude names during a blog discussion and sending threatening and abusive emails to their work address then you quite simply do not posess the mental capacity to understand this issue.
Everything you have written above is irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with the complaint originally made by Lefty. Every word you write is simply further evidence that you're an idiot.
And yes - I freely admit that I'm abusing you in this post. Please don't point it out to everyone as another of your wonderfully insightful revelations - I'm sure they can see it without your help.
I only "insult" people when it's entirely justified, NOG. Not just for fun or out of randomness or baseless attacks.
So, if I'm calling anyone an idiot here, that's because they ARE.
Stop making me think the same thing over and over with every time you come up with the same old garbage.
Laughing stock on Tim Blair's blog?
My, my. As if any of us gave a rats.
29th comment in this thread, Jeremy:
"What's Timmeh's excuse for publishing names and addresses of bloggers just because he disagrees with their political views?"
A fix would be appreciated. Or we could make a deal: leave that mistaken accusation in place and delete the parking guy's name and picture.
Even better: delete the name and picture and you'll be granted Lifetime Blair Immunity, under the terms of which you may continue to write whatever you wish about me but I vow never to respond.
It's a win/win for you and parking guy!
No worries, Bron, so I proclaim that you "ARE" a fuckwit.
Simple, really. Only because I deem it "justified". Cause, as you say, you just.... "are".
Mondo, your comments are so infused with your filthy fuckin' language, you neanderthal, that I deeply suspect it's more to do with your complete lack of reasoning ability. Intellectual giant that you are.
Skeptic, hahaha, look at you. Standing up big and tall, diving in, flexing those tongue muscles. Go get 'em, tiger! Aren't you a fairly recent addition to this goon squad? My my, you are travelling well.
Lefty, you keep a high stanard personally, but the attack dogs are are little more than ankle-biters.
Please, please! Stop! No, NO, you're hurting my feelings!
LOL, what a bunch of tossers. I only protested your insults, dear hangers-on (incl Mondo the filthy languaged child), not because I'm personally offended, but because it demonstrated a tendency to remove some value from the discussion at hand.
Attack dogs?
Takes one to know one.
Recent addition? No, I've been here for a few years.
But enough with the "tongue muscles" and "tiger", you have just progressed from wanker to creepy.
hahahahaha
Sorry, justy re-reading that intolerant enforced groupthink comment of yours again.
Do you write comedy for a living or are you just a natural?
"What's Timmeh's excuse for publishing names and addresses of bloggers just because he disagrees with their political views?"
A fix would be appreciated.
Fair enough. Fixed.
"Even better: delete the name and picture and you'll be granted Lifetime Blair Immunity, under the terms of which you may continue to write whatever you wish about me but I vow never to respond.
It's a win/win for you and parking guy!"
That's actually a fairly tempting offer. On the one hand, I'm not particularly inclined to accede to demands made by bullies like you and Bolt. On the other hand, never again having to clean up a thread from the droppings of your monkeys would be rather nice.
I'll have a think about it. Time limit on the offer?
Skeptic, "comedy"? What was so funny about NOG's boring as batshit drivel?!
Quick, do something, save yourself!
Skeptic,
I'll make it easy for you.
Insulting others' because of their viewpoint is not to invalidate that viewpoint.
A better arguement will do that.
Insulting others' because of their viewpoint is a bully boy tactic, and it is shaping group think by illustrating to those participating in the comments that those who do not disagree, will not be insulted.
That's intolerant.
Are you able to comprehend that little formula. Can you process that? Try it now, sllllowly.
You have until midnight, Jeremy.
I was insulting you because you are carrying on like a right pratt.
Is a Lifetime Blair Immunity binding or realistic??
or is a non core promise.
Commenting by HaloScan
