It's Piñatas all the way down

Can we get BushCo's CIA or somebody to check the IPs of those commenters for evidence of sockpuppetry? Surely they are in a laptop sitting in a Starbuck's in Reston as we speak. Write. Whatever.

Anyway, I liked the letter about the Ashes the best. A-men brother.

Best,

D

Do you believe the letter was entirely accurate Tim?

Why?

Ahhhh Tim, it seems you have an attack of the Graeme Birds. The poor little man is getting shrill due to the lack of attention he's being paid. The world can be such a cruel place at times.

Tim -
If you are ever the recipient of a foul and abusive comment from a semiliterate troll (it's bound to happen some day), consider this:

Sure, simple deletion is quick and effective, but wouldn't a little ridicule be satisfying to the spirit? John Quiggin dealt with one extreme case by replacing the troll's comments with his own shorter interpretations. Order was restored, the thread was un-vandalized, and a public example was made. Just a suggestion.

jre-
What a simple and effective action! I haven't seen trolls ever give up so quickly. Now, if their other obnoxious behaviors (not listed here - trolls tend to be stupid and I would hate to give them ideas) can be curbed, intelligent (well, semi-intelligent anyway) posting can be protected.

I remember seeing quite a bit of "Asians out" graffiti in the early nineties. Not very much nowadays.

Basically, this is equivalent to asserting that, because the crime rate is low, anybody who says they've been robbed is lying.

Do you believe the letter was entirely accurate Tim?

Nice attempt at diversion.

"Nice attempt at diversion."

How so? The letters accuracy is the central point of all this is it not?

Blair's discussion is just so bizarre.

What possible motivation would this person have for making it all up, especially when she is at pains to say how much she had come to love Australia and what a great time she had had up until her experience?

And surely Blair can see the logical distinction between "those Australians were racist" and "all Australians are racist"? Does he really believe that not one single Australian has ever made a derogatory remark about Asians?

Whack whack.

"What possible motivation would this person have for making it all up"

Jack Marx has written an article just for you.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/2007/01/lest_the_freaks_…

One possible motivation for her to make it up is that she admits to assaulting a child?

...make that a young man.

Well, Marx's article explains Tim Blair, but not Kunthea Ker's letter.

And:

>One possible motivation for her to make it up is that she admits to assaulting a child?

So you are saying she invented an assault on a child to make herself look good?

And she didn't admit to assaulting a child.

Nope. I'm saying that one possible motivation for her to exaggerate (I'm not saying that she's lying, just that the story as she has written it doesn't sound believable to me) or even fabricate the racism was that she's a lawyer, she's from the states and it sounds like she has a persecution complex. She may be scared that she'll get sued for assaulting the young man and that may have motivated her to attempt to conjur up some kind of just cause - like rampant all in racism oz style.

She may be scared that she'll get sued for assaulting the young man and that may have motivated her to attempt to conjur up some kind of just cause

That is surely, obviously, absurd. She's afraid of being sued (not charged?) for assault, so writes a public letter to the SMH to "conjure" a justification? Who would do that?

sean M, I know you are probably a fully paid up member of the Blair space ranger patrol so reasoning with you may be a waste of time.
But despite this I persist with the following
1. Quoting Jack Marx ( friend of Blairies) as an authority on anything is a big mistake.
2. Creating scenarios about the possibilities is a waste of time until the participants have has their day in court. ( An unlikely event).
We have a statement from one participant in this event, whether you choose to believe her is up to you , and there are no facts or other witnesses to dipute her version of events.

Let me get this straight, sean. You believe that she was worried that this man would track her down to North Carolina and make himself a laughing stock by suing a 5 foot tall woman for assault and hence she wrote a letter giving her name and address and confessing to the crime?

As for Jack Marx, I think this is his reference to Tim Blair:

>some of my best friends are as dense as cabbage

Mark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerri_Dunn

Bill: I was merely responding specifically to Mark's question about possible motivations and giving my own opinion on the issue. No biggy. Oh and I wasn't quoting Jack Marx as an authority. I just thought it was a funny and possible appropriate article.

Tim: No, but it's possible and my comment was a specific response addressing possible motivations. (btw I don't think he would have to do much "tracking down" because, as you say, "she wrote a letter giving her name and address and confessing to the crime")

I understand that your beef is with Blair himself and not the central issue of the letter, but can I just ask - do you think it is absolutely impossible that any part of the letter is exaggerated or fabricated in any way at all?

"(btw I don't think he would have to do much "tracking down" because, as you say, "she wrote a letter giving her name and address and confessing to the crime")"

Since that's the only conceivable way she could ever possibly be tracked down doesn't it strike you as a rather foolish thing to do?

Rather as if OJ Simpson had rung the police from his ex-wife's house and then tried to claim self-defence.

'I understand that your beef is with Blair himself and not the central issue of the letter, but can I just ask - do you think it is absolutely impossible that any part of the letter is exaggerated or fabricated in any way at all?"

It's the internet -how does Tim L. know you (or I) aren't an exceptionally well trained chimp beyond all possible doubt?

The question isn't whether every single aspect of the letter is 100% proven - its whether Tim Blair's howling outrage at it and his claims that its a pack of lies from beginning to end is a reasonable response.

Just called the analogy police. They're on their way.

So you agree with Blair that the letter could be suspect Alan?

..or Ian even.

Sean M Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerri_Dunn
According to http://libertarian.journalspace.com/?cat=news-comment
Kerri Dunn "was identified by two eyewitnesses as the person who damaged the auto" and didn't just own up to it under the klieg light of blog accusation.
Now what is the difference between this and the Kunthea Ker case ?
By my counting you are at least one witness short.
As we know,there are known knowns.There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns and don't let me get onto unknown unknowns.

"So you agree with Blair that the letter could be suspect ?"

Yes, so could 99% of events which I haven't directly witnessed with my own senses.

We're getting into "How do we know Tibet exists"" territory.

There's a difference between not having absolute proof of the truth of a statement and being willing to publicly slander the author of the statement as a liar on no supporting evidence whatsoever.

You've missed the point again Bill. Slippery little suckers aren't they?

The reference to Kerri Dunn was a specific example of a person "conjuring a justification" in response to Marks last post above. But in this case, the fake racial attack was concocted to justify in some way the contents of her lecture on racial tolerance.

I'm not saying Kunthea lied, just that it's a possibility.

Yes Sean, the letter makes it easy to track her down. Which means that if she was worried about being sued for assault, **she wouldn't have written the letter**. Being worried about being sued is a reason not to write the letter. It is not a reason why she would have written the letter.

Sean, do you think Ker lied? Yes or no.

I don't know, but I think it's possible. I also think it's possible that her account is accurate, but something about it doesn't sound right to me. That's my opinion and it's also being objective - leaving open the possiblity in my own mind that either scenario may be true. That's the point and the reason I'm still hanging around on this post. You have had a go at Blair, as is your want, but you haven't been able to bring yourself to concede that there may be even a tiny chance that what he's saying, may in fact be correct. It would seem that your ability to be objective (and therefore credible) has been hamstrung by your personal vendetta against Blair.

So, for the third time, do you think that the letter is entirely 100% accurate, or do you think there is any possibilty that there are inaccuracies in her account?

Mr Lambert,

Do you think Australians are racists? Yes or no.

(1956 AWST)

"That's my opinion and it's also being objective - leaving open the possiblity in my own mind that either scenario may be true."

So you still insist that it's perfectly already for Blair to accuse her of lying when you admit there's no evidence to that effect?

Tell me, if I decide based on your posts here that you're a violent racist who probably engages in attacks on Asians and proceed to announce this to the world, would you "give me the benefit of the doubt" and feel perfectly happy with me making baseless and unwarranted attacks on you?

*slaps forhead, rolls eyes*

Yes I agree with you there SeanM this topic has ceased to be of interest to anybody but the particpants and perhaps Tim Blair. Do something useful with your scenario building skills and discuss why Psychic Inestigators ( ABC Thurs 8 P.M.) is such a crock.

But Bill, they might really be psychic.

Can you prove absolutely they aren't?

The letters accuracy is the central point of all this is it not?

No, it is not, glad you asked!

So, for the third time, do you think that the letter is entirely 100% accurate, or do you think there is any possibilty that there are inaccuracies in her account?

Basically SeanM is trying the following trick:

1. Get you to say "she might possibly be lying." Which could hardly be denied.
2. Therefore, you agree with TB that she might be lying.
3. Therefore, you agree with TB that she is probably lying.
4. Therefore, you agree that TB was right to ridicule her.

(Sighs)

*"The letters accuracy is the central point of all this is it not?"*

*"No, it is not, glad you asked!"*

It is. You've discussed it yourself by using this strange analogy in your initial post above?:

*"Basically, this is equivalent to asserting that, because the crime rate is low, anybody who says they've been robbed is lying."*

You seem confused so let me make it simple for you. If I was to believe her letter without question, then I would essentially agree with her statement that:

*"The degree to which racism is openly tolerated and practised in Australia is infuriating."*

Now you might agree with that statement along with the other "what gives you the right to doubt her" posters here, and Tim's no response to my questions above is certainly instructive. But I don't.

Remember, that's not saying that I think there is no racism in Australia, I just don't find her account believable and don't agree with that statement.

SeanM: If I was to believe her letter without question, then I would essentially agree with her statement that:

"The degree to which racism is openly tolerated and practised in Australia is infuriating."

1. You don't have to believe her absolutely - you just have to realise that calling someone a liar with no solid basis for doing so is unfair.

2. she says it "infuriates" her - unless you're telepathic or are planning to subject her to a polygraph test how can you ever establish whether a statement about her subjective emotional state is true or false? Maybe she's jsut easilt infuriated.

3. If you're going to metaphorically storm out of a discussion in high dudgeon storming back a day later rather undercuts the grand gesture.

0 for 3. Can't take a trick can you Ian?

I've never called her a liar, you've misquoted her from the original letter (even though you've included the correct quote at the top of the same post) and I never left the discussion.

Here's another quote from the original letter.

*"The crowd seemed full of people making racist, disparaging comments about Asians - not only within our hearing but to our faces."*

Sound believable to you? Why? Especially the "full of" bit.

Here's a scenario for you SeanM. From her description of events three idiots in the crowd insulted her. She became upset ( hard for you to imagine) and concluded that the whole crowd was anti Asian.

"I've never called her a liar

no, that'd be Blair - the person whose conduct is being criticsed here.

And if you think "it is infuriating" is signifcantly different from "It infuriates me" then you really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

She gave three examples, but says the crowd was "full" of people making actual racist comments about asians. Sounds like an exaggeration doesn't it?

Ian, I think you had better brush up on nuance.

Obviously I couldn't disagree with her if she had said "It infuriates me", because she would have been describing her own feelings. What she did say was an open statement - *"The degree to which racism is openly tolerated and practised in Australia is infuriating."*. I don't agree with that statement for a number of reasons. Geddit?

Also, can you please remind us of the quote where Blair calls her a liar? Just copy and paste it right here in this discussion.

Sean M, does it ever occur to you that you're wasting your time?

Sean M is not wasting his time - he is wasting ours.

zoot: Just part of my search for a good quality, objective left of centre blog where I can engage in reasonable discussion with people who may have different political beliefs to my own. Guess I'll keep looking. Any suggestions? You appear to be a lw blog lurker.

mndean: No one is forcing to read it. Productive post though. Well done.

I'm beggining to get that feeling you get from arguing with a creationist. They tend to wander off at a tangent, and you end up arguing semantics about stuff that is not ultimately relevant.
Like in this situation, we have some personal testimony from someone, and then we have people coming along who dont beleive it. FIne. Thats their privilege. But then they try and come up with rational reasons not to believe the testimony, without apparently any other data!
Which they can of course do, but then they insist that their view is more correct than anyone elses!
And seem to be annoyed that other people disagree!
Then they go off in a huff declaring that the regulaars on this blog dont come up to their exacting intellectual standards.

So when Blair wrote "I don't buy this." he was referrign to the paper which published Ker's remarks.

Since your a master of nuance, parse that in close proximity ot a reference to her background in "creative writing" as soemthign other than a claim that she lied.

I'm sure you can do it after you seem to have managed to parse "this is infuriating" as "I hate all Australians with a burning white-hot passion and look forward to the day when my Asiatic brethren exterminate the subhuman vermin."

guthrie: Lame post. Simple - I'm questioning the accuracy of a letter to the editor and trying to understand why someone would try to tell me and others that you shouldn't do that when the letter is clearly exaggerated. No tangents from me and apologies for trying to be rational. I'm all for people disagreeing with me, just want to understand why. Thats OK right?

Ian: (googles "parse") Ah. Forgot I was on a computer scientists blog. Saying "I don't buy this" is not calling her a liar, just saying he's not convinced. I don't even understand your third sentence.

I get the feeling you guys don't get called on your bullshit here often?

So Lame-berts. Who thinks that the degree to which racism is openly tolerated and practised in Australia is infuriating?

Beuller..........Beuller...........

I've not lived in Australia for 20-odd years now. However, based on my experience in the US and Canada:
a) Racism exists
b) It's often behind people's backs but (sorry, TimB) not always
c) If one person in a public place starts making racist comments at a specific person, they'll generally find allies, especially if that person is annoying them in some way
d) Wasn't there a riot in Cronulla that had something to do with 'race'?

I'm happy that Australia is less racist than it was; Sean, prove that it's not racist (what's Parliament look like?)

trying to understand why someone would try to tell me and others that you shouldn't do that when the letter is clearly exaggerated.

"Clearly exaggerated"? How then do you know the incident in the letter isn't completely made up?

Re-read guthrie's comment carefully.

If somebody publicly humiliated you and your family, and you wrote a letter to the paper about it, and somebody said "Oh, I see you have a degree in creative writing, ha ha ha!" how would you react? Wouldn't the possibility of its being true necessitate some level of politeness -- even if it eventually turns out to be false?

Sean,
"I've never called her a liar", yet "the letter is clearly exaggerated". Sounds like your earlier claim to be agnostic about the truth of the incident were, well, exaggerated. I suspect that your stated desire for a reasonable dialog with lefties is also exaggerated- I can't imagine wanting a dialog & seeking it out via your tactics of nitpicking and semantic wrangling. Nor can I imagine many topics less well-suited to generating such a dialog. But if you're serious, check out Obsidian Wings.
Finally, a piece of advice: if your only method of determining truth or falsehood are your gut feelings about things (eg you're sure that the letter was exaggerated despite having no data other than the letter), you will never know more than you do now.

"I get the feeling you guys don't get called on your bullshit here often"

I get the feeling you haven't read much if any of this blog before jumping in to defend Blair.

You're aware of the difference between a lie and an exaggeration right? Example? To give 3 examples of racist comments and then conclude that a 1 million strong crowd is "full" of people making racist comments is an exaggeration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it seems like I was nitpicking, that may be because I actually replied to many of the questions or comments directed at me. Even the dumb ones. *(Mental note: In future, ignore the dumb ones.)*

Most of the questions I asked were simply ignored - particularly by Lambert even after repeating a simple yet important one on 3 separate occasions. The central issue was constant thoughout though.

Re your final advice, if you had read all of my comments above, you wouldn't be serious about that.

I'll give obsidian wings a go, ta.

Bye Shean. It hasnt been fun knowing you.

You're wrong- I would say that exaggeration isn't necessarily a lie- if the speaker intends for the exaggeration to be understood (ie "It must have weighed a million pounds") or if the speaker believes their exaggeration (eg "The guy was like 7 feet tall") because of their own hurried or excited perceptions.

But to intentionally exaggerate with the intention of being taken literally is lying (ie "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"). If you think otherwise, maybe you'd like to provide a counterexample.

As for your claim that you've asked questions and not been answered- you've acted the troll. Politely, but trollish nonetheless. You've entered the conversation with the agenda of derailing it- the question at hand was *never* whether anyone was *certain* that the account was correct, it was whether it is appropriate to claim that the account is certainly a lie based on rather flimsy indirect evidence. Not wanting to debate this point, you've picked another conversation you'd rather have. Naturally, you've been mostly ignored.
If you actually want to go to liberal boards and get involved in serious conversations, you'll have to abandon this tactic. Discuss what they are discussing, or go elsewhere. If they're talking about whether Bush's actions rise to the level of impeachable & you want to shift the discussion to a talk about Clinton's actions and a comparison between the two- expect to be mostly ignored. It's not that Bush-Clinton would be inherently uninteresting, but that's not what people have chosen to discuss. If you're prompted to a discussion of Bush-Clinton based on that thread, post it on your own blog & mention it on the other blog. Maybe, *after* you've been accepted by the community, you can threadjack *a little bit*. Or even ask one of the posters to post an additional thread on your topic.

Well put Carleton. And another hint for Sean. If you rooly trooly want to "engage in reasonable discussion with people who may have different political beliefs to my own", this is not the way to do it:
So Lame-berts ...

For those who give a rats here's some more stupid from Blairie :
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/sources_not_checked/

Bill: In that example Blair does have a point. The PEER [press release](http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801) doesn't say that rangers are forbidden to answer questions about the age of the canyon. What they say is this:

>PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

So they can answer the question (and presumably give the scientific answer) but there is no official answer when they get asked about how come it wasn't created in Noah's flood and various Creationist arguments get brought up.

PEER also say:

>Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as "no comment" and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters.

I anticipated your point Tim although Terry Lane got it slightly wrong his substative point was in fact correct. The Bush Administration has tried to interfere in the NPS to the extent of pushing Creationism onto it ( it's a service they provide to the Fundamentalists). Blair , as usual , tries to simplify things perhaps for his own uderstanding.

*"the question at hand was never whether anyone was certain that the account was correct, it was whether it is appropriate to claim that the account is certainly a lie based on rather flimsy indirect evidence."*

I guess you're right Carleton. After all this is Lamberts blog, and it's therefore probably correct to say that the discussion started somewhere around his comment:

*"Tim Blair's response? He accuses her of lying."*

Blair never accused her of lying of course, (and I made a specific point to say I wasn't), but no matter, the strawman was constructed, the blinkers were on and the whacking sticks were unsheaved.

*"Does he really believe that not one single Australian has ever made a derogatory remark about Asians?"* Whack!

*"Basically, this is equivalent to asserting that, because the crime rate is low, anybody who says they've been robbed is lying."* Whack!

*"The question isn't whether every single aspect of the letter is 100% proven - its whether Tim Blair's howling outrage at it and his claims that its a pack of lies from beginning to end is a reasonable response."* Whack!

The strawman never had a chance of course. I even copped a few when I stepped to divert attention away from the poor defenceless thing.

*"The letters accuracy is the central point of all this is it not?"*

*"So you are saying she invented an assault on a child to make herself look good?"* Whack!

Why does it matter? For me it was because her exaggeration, lead to this comment.

*"The degree to which racism is openly tolerated and practised in Australia is infuriating."*

I've had a chance to live in a few countries around the world, including in the middle east, north america, the uk and south east asia and I can honestly say in my experience that Australia is more tolerant than all of them with the possible exception of Canada.

Did everyone commenting on this blog agree with that comment that Australia is infuriatingly racist? Dunno. No one would say.

My highlight though, came right at the end when an attempt was made to set up another strawman before Lambert swiftly intervened snatching the whacking stick out of the perps hand.

*"Bill: In that example Blair does have a point."*

LOL.

(I look forward to your reponse Carleton. I'm predicting a nooooot quite right but well written rebuttal followed some pretentious and irrelevant advice.)

SeanM you are back but merely repeating yourself. Dou you ever get tired of that . Thought not.
Anyway in more Blair related stupidity the situation re the NPS and the Bush administration is more complex than he would have us believe :
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=428
Blairie as usual taking sides in what is a more complex situation than he can understand.

Well he is a Blair of little brain.

Blair never accused her of lying of course

Complete nonsense. Sorry.

Did everyone commenting on this blog agree with that comment that Australia is infuriatingly racist? Dunno. No one would say.

Making assertions which can be disproved using the scroll-bar is a bad move.

I agree with them -- Sydney is a tolerant place

I remember seeing quite a bit of "Asians out" graffiti in the early nineties. Not very much nowadays.

About a dozen people have individually and carefully pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and your response is basically to repeat "straw man" -- as though you knew what that means -- and to ignore these painfully complete replies.

I look forward to your response. I'm predicting a highly-elaborate, deceitful, nooooot-quite-right, poorly-written "rebuttal" followed by some smug prediction or other directed at people who actually have a clue.

Blair or proxy space ranger the current situration is this
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=805
Now read it very carefully.