Harry’s Place

If the DNS is disabled will links to HP’s posts on other websites still work?

If the DNS is disabled will links to HP’s posts on other websites still work?

No. Afraid not.

Hope any disappearance is indeed brief.

Could you publish your IP address is it fixed? Also would it be possible for people to set up mirror sites?

Which company is your domain name registered with? I presume it’s the UK, as I’ve never heard of a US company doing this.

P.

The libel laws in the UK are pretty screwed up. If Delich does link to far-right websites, HP is well within its rights to point this out.

Unfortunately Private Eye is littered with stories of folk getting censored in the UK for trying to tell the truth about powerful people, so much so in fact that I think I remember Lieberman (or someone else) has proposed a law in the US protecting folk being hounded there.

It’s all very rum, indeed.

Could you publish your IP address is it fixed? Also would it be possible for people to set up mirror sites?

Or, indeed register a temporary domain name with another provider -how about harrysplacestillhereyahboosucks.org?

P.

I see your domain is registered by daily.co.uk? I’ve never heard of a domain registrar being sued for content reasons (only for abusing trademarks) so I have no idea why they have reacted to the complaint in this way. Will they not even show you a copy of the complaint so you can defend yourself?

P.

Daily are a chickenshit ISP. I’m no supporter of HP, but since when has the truth been defamatory? Vexatious indeed.

DNS changes take time to filter through. We’re already getting emails from peopel saying the site has disappeared for the.
We’re working on alternatives.

This disagraceful tactic proves that HP is telling the truth about these sick people, and they are running scared.

jr, US sites pull stuff down for libel all the time. In fact, given the strong First Amendment protection in the US, libel accusations are one of the few ways to get stuff pulled off the internet. The other is accusations of copyright infringement.

I can’t access it via BT Connect broadbean, but can on my mobile.

Presumably Delich herself or someone acting for her has complained.

If not - and the registrar is acting on a libel complaint by a third party - then this is a real scandal.

Meanwhile I think you should stop referring to Ms Delich as an “academic”…have you looked at the Sheffield College website?
University it is not.

Fuck em!! The truth should not be suppressed. no matter where you blog ill still read it

(Ironically, if it isn’t her who complained you are slandering her now…)

Hardly. Nobody is saying that she did do it, only wondering whether she did.

These people are not scholars.

Nor gentlemen ;-)

So long as the Wordpress server IP address doesn’t change you can simply put the following line into the hosts file

64.13.233.3 http://www.hurryupharry.org

the gap is a tab. The file is C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts with no extension. Sadly, I can’t remember where it is under Linux, but I’m sure someone can enlighten us.

Well, I can still see it from my neck of the woods.

NOTE FOR THE ABOVE: Wordpress in it’s infinite stupidity has prefixed http:// in front of the w_w_w of the site, remove that, or perhaps the esteemed admin could remove it.

NOTE for my previous, Wordpress has put in http:// in front of the w_w_w of the site, remove that and it will work correctly.

It’d be /etc/hosts in linux or anything unix like.

It’d be /etc/hosts in linux or anything unix like. Iirc it moves around from version to version of windows.

It’s brilliant though, a UCU activist drags their union’s reputation through liquidied excrement and the apparent response is to try covering it up by way of threats rather than reflecting on the direction their cozy pro boycott discussion is taking.

Further to my previous, the C:\windows does change, can be C:\winnt or virtually anything ( you can cutomise it ) but on the recent ( NT based ) systems it will be in the system32\drivers\etc directory. Under 95-98 it lives in the root windows directory, but you have to create it, normally by copying the hosts.sam ( sample ) file. Oh and ignore the “http://” part in the above it should be the raw domain name, seems the comment system put that in automatically.

Meanwhile, having tidied up her own backyard so well, Sally Hunt is now on CiF advising the security services on how not to bother with students who are “researching” terrorism.

I presume she will tell us that Ms Dellich was merely “researching” Zionism.

Brett, if you do get taken offline, why not have a chat with Nick Cohen to see if he can put a piece in the ‘Observer’? I think it’s about time the racism that is festering in UCU is brought out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream press.

Http://duke-of-chaos.livejournal.com

It’s brilliant though, a UCU activist drags their union’s reputation through liquidied excrement and the apparent response is to try covering it up by way of threats rather than reflecting on the direction their cozy pro boycott discussion is taking.

Oh, that’s typical liberal behaviour though. Next they’ll be screaming “racist!” at Harry’s Place.

Sorry, Mortgot, you mean ‘liberal’.

Just to let you know that it’s 12:02 pm my time and I can still see you.

Regards,

Inna

Testing …

9.15 testing

This is the only thread I can post to. The others ‘don’t exist’.

NO–

I just tested a couple of other threads. I can see all of them and was able to (successfully) post to a few. (I didn’t post to all of them as I figured people would get fed up with my illuminating “testing” posts)

I am accessing HP from the US. I wonder if that makes a difference?

Regards,

Inna

Visible in London, too, though I couldn’t see it this pm.

This sort of attack on a distributor is reminiscent of the way some aggrieved parties used to go after Private Eye, by threatening to sue its distributors. It’s quite iliegitmate, of course.

Lutta continua!

That could have been more clearly expressed….

“This sort of attack on an ISP is reminiscent of the way some aggrieved parties used to go after Private Eye, by suing its distributors such as WH Smith…”

Have you had any updates from your provider? I ask because (at this moment–3:28 pm my time) you are the fastest-loading page on my browser.

Regards,

Inna

If you need any money for legal bills to defend yourself from this vile cretinous behaviour by the Neo-Nazi-Linking-Lovers, I’m in. This is an absolute disgrace.

Testing, testing 123.. DNS should now be with us and Harry should be back. Testing, testing..

Test post after editing /etc/resolv.conf to another DNS server. Will it get through…? Yep, I think it will.

Seems to be back. Now let’s await the NXDOMAIN cacheing to time-out and all shall be back. Then let Ms Delich come and try it on with us and see how far she gets ;-)

Shall we laugh evil laughs at the promotors of literature found on personal sites of individuals associated with groups to which wannabe assassins of Obama belong?

By jove, I think we can. Delich, you’re toast!

Hurrah, you’re back! Well done, well done indeed..

Back here too! DNS migration is clearly in progress.

welcome back!

You’re back, good news. Thanks to Mod for keeping us updated. This raised a storm in the blogosphere.

I Second WestEndGirl on that

If you need Coin of the realm dont hesitate to ask WEG is right this IS a disgrace.

In case you need to know The time is 18.07

Welcome back.

And I’ll second those thanks to Modernity.

Congratulations on your return.

How wonderfully stalinist of her.

Anyways, it’s great that HP is back.

Welcome back - what’s the story ? Your previous ISP was called daily.co.uk wasn’t it ? What made them cave in ? Presumably the new ISP Positive Internet have a different view ?

We need to know !

“We assume after threats were made on the weekend that this ‘complaint’ originates from Jenna Delich or her supporters.”

etc etc etc all down the thread.

So, you don’t know who complained. You don’t know what they complained about. You don’t know how it was worded. You don’t know why HP was closed down or on what basis. You don’t know if it was closed by sober legal eagles, or a temp in the office. However, in the face of this stack of certainties, you’ve constructed a case of appalling behaviour (and I don’t mean the link to Duke) by Delich re blogs and HP in particular.

Rigorous stuff, guys.

Welcome back, Harry’s Place. You have been missed. This outrage has not and will not go unanswered.

Back in middle USA! Missed you for two days.

Michael Rosen -

Read here.

“Webhosts Daily.co.uk subsequently received a complaint that the post was ’slanderous’, and informed Harry’s Place that it would not continue to host the blog’s domain name, saying the bloggers had breached terms of use.”

So while we don’t know who complained (although it is not unreasonable to assume it is the person who was the subject of the post, is it not?), we do know the grounds of the complaint, and why HP was closed down.

Although we don’t know which particular person at the ISP closed down HP. But that’s hardly relevant, is it?

Perhaps the complaint was really from a devious Zionist (or Mossad !?) trying to destroy the reputation of the brave Palestinian activists on UCU by getting them blamed for this censorship ?

What do you think Michael ?

Cheers, Matt,

but I did what anyone else would have done

What I found amusing about this whole event, was not the event itself, which was fairly simple and straightforward, but how people reacted to it

That was the most telling point and often, how they reacted to HP being shutdown either said something about their politics, their character or their attitude towards Jews

Broadly speaking, there were three types of reaction:

1) Immediate unconditional support from bloggers

2) qualified support, some through gritted teeth, as in the Exile’s case

3) quibbling and arguing about HP (as a fountain of all evil), how the article wasn’t as bad as made out, and in one instance a poster couldn’t see the racist nature of that particular David Duke web page until he went to the “about” section of Duke’s site, which is staggering.

That argument is still carrying on at Socialist unity blog

And what struck me was not the malice of the comments (although with Richard Seymour you never know), but it was the profound ignorance and willingness to argue the toss.

You have people who have just scan David Duke’s web site, and are having difficulty working out what is “anti-Zionist” and “what is antisemitic”, their ignorance in these matters is astonishing, utterly astonishing

But what is worse they don’t appreciate it, they don’t understand how ignorant they are on these topics, there is not an ounce of introspection.

I think David Hirsh made the most perceptive comment:

“I would add this: if you agree with what is written on a fascist website then you should stop and wonder why that might be.”

Welcome back HP!

Indeed, modernity.

This episode has been revealing. Reaction type 3) has sadly been much in evidence.

the sooner zionist racist supremists like Harry’s Bog is flushed into oblivion the better.

So now we are to stand in solidarity with outright racist scum like HP? Are you, Andy, then also saying we should openly declare our solidarity with other fascists?

Confused is not the word.

I can understand the quandary some on the anti-israel “left” are in. If they find themselves to walk like a duck and quack like a duck, a fair deal of rationalisation is required for them to prove to themselves that they are not in fact all a bunch of ducks.

Good to see you back, and it seems this is the not the first time Jenna Delich has been the subject of complaints

Time for one of my universally popular interventions

Matt

“Welcome back - what’s the story ? Your previous ISP was called daily.co.uk wasn’t it ? What made them cave in ? Presumably the new ISP Positive Internet have a different view ?

We need to know !”

We can view a modicum of a backbone. It seems our quotidian friends can’t. And that’s about it.

But even from a self-interested perspective, the repeatedly pusillanimous reactions by our competitors are madness: they do the industry no favours by capitulating like this at every mad sneeze in their direction, because each time they give in, they make the UK an ever-more chilly environment for hosting and managing web content, which is their business!

I would love to see this come to court. You have more friends than you think. This jenna character is obviously a fool.

Mr. Rosen is trying to draw the pack away from Delich’s egregiousness by trying to create an argument about who was primarily shut down HP. It will be interesting to see what he says if and when the complainant is revealed. Perhaps then he might also comment on the substantive point that she accepts every word of the link as ‘fact’. Somewhat uncritical for an academic don’t you think Michael?

welcome back, and fuck ‘em all!

You’re back , having defeated the forces of evil. Who is this Jenna Delich anyway ? Is she American ? Why is she wearing Princess Diana’s hair ? Rock on Harry.

Mike Rosen,

You may well be fairly witty with a script and preparation, but reading your comments on the Socialist Unity blog I am struck by how naive you are.

We’ve been discussing this topic off and on for three years, in which time the nub of the argument was that the constant diet of aggressive “anti-Zionism” desensitises people to anti-Jewish racism

Now you can disagree with that as an argument, but the evidence is out there

You only have to look at the thread at AVPS to see that some SWP members can’t see much racism on the particular David Duke web page that Ms. Delich posted, see complexsystemofpipes comments.

that is very telling.

I am sure that if these SWPers see a tattooed skinhead shouting racial obscenities that these same people would get the message, but their inability to perceive it when it’s not signposted or spelt out to them says a lot about the depth of their politics and understanding.

I don’t expect you to agree with anything I’ve said, I would expect you to defend these people to the hilt.

But remember how they treated you over Aztmon, and reflect.

see http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/solidarity-with-harrys-place.html

Well, Grimm, if you think you can construct an argument on the basis of not knowing what the ‘complaint’ was, who made it, or on what basis action was taken or by whom or indeed if it really was a ‘complaint’ ,then you’ve got a career awaiting you in fairyland. Yes, indeed, you may well be right: Delich may have written to someone who matters that she was going to sue the arse off HP and the person who matters weighed it all up and pulled HP on the basis of what Delich wrote. On the other hand, something else completely different may have happened, at any stage in the process of reaching the point at which HP was pulled. And does anyone know why it was de-pulled? Perhaps you do Grimm. I’m all ears. (yeah yeah, I know).

Modernity, I don’t remember being ‘treated’ over the Atzmon affair. I remember a discussion and an outcome. Perhaps you know otherwise. As for what SWP members say on blogs - to tell the truth I’ve never figured out how to tell which organisation a blogger belongs to. Do you have a method you can share with me?

Michael.
De-pulled?
Are you being dim on purpose?

I’m surprised, after your last experience as useful idiot for the SWP over anti semitism and how you got treated, that you seem to have come back for more.

And, sorry, what’s ‘AVPS’?

I feel a little sorry for Michael Rosen, in the same way I feel sorry for other people who have to work so hard to buffer their religious precepts from the battering wind of contingent reality. Poor man. Here’s a an unambiguous, old-style, jew-baiting, KKK-leading forum hosting a tin-hat, protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion conspiracy merchant’s article. Had this article had been about any other racially contentious issue (take your pick - there are links vilifying blacks, muslims and so on down the side of the article Jenna enjoyed with such relish), all hell would have broken loose on the UCU mailing list, and Michael Rosen would have been leading the charge. But, hey, it’s only the Whining Yids againg, eh, Michael, so to hell with them.

I’ve never figured out how to tell which organisation a blogger belongs to. Do you have a method you can share with me?

If they say that they’re SWP then they’re likely to be.

tim, good to see you back in insult-mode. No, I don’t know why or how HP got removed, or why or how it came back. ‘De-pulled’ was a sort of linguistic joke. Sorry. Won’t do it again. De-pulled = restored. If you know why or how HP was restored, tell on. I have no idea how servers etc work, and no one on these blogs seems to think it’s worth explaining to people how it’s done. We are just told that HP was closed down and then it reappears.

Michael, have you purposely forgotten the reaction to the Atzmon saga. You were considered insufficiently Juedenrein to be an honest broker and were attacked vehemently by your erstwhile “comrades”. I can understand why you might want to have forgotten the details of that shabby saga. Others haven’t.

Post, if ‘whining yids’ is meant to be the kind of sentiment that I hold, then I think you’re mistaken. I can see this fast moving towards the usual HP level of approach towards me, the high point being when someone told HP readers I was an ‘animal’.

Mike Rosen,

you don’t remember?

you told the SWP that Atzmon was articulating racism, they ignored you and kept inviting him.

Mike, the fact that you can’t work it out, doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t :)

Michael: an official complaint was made to daily.co.uk, which hosts Harry’s Place’s domain (ie: literally hurryupharry.org) and points it to the right place. The complainant pointed out that the material was “slanderous” and that they were affected by it, and would act if the domain was not made to point nowhere. So daily.co.uk decided, timidly, to point it to nowhere, with no further due-process than that. Shameful.

My company then came and offered Harry’s Place DNS hosting, and we put in place the domain transfer, so that we can make sure that it points to the correct server that’s hosting the site.

We now assuredly await “That Person” to return to us and re-issue the complaint. They’re welcome to do so. When they do, shall I put them in touch with you so you can re-educate them?

I hope this clarifies it for you.

Michael.
I’m sorry you think useful idiot is an insult regarding your behaviour over the SWP,Atzmon, Martin Smith et al.
I thought I was being polite and letting you off a bit.
Even Galloway pulled out of that one when he was tipped off.

I think if you read the thread above,all your questions will be answered about depulling.

Michael -

We know what the complaint was, and the basis on which action was taken.

The name of the complainee is not known.

Post, I have no idea if you’re a member of any kind of organisation, cultural group, club or whatever, but in every kind of that sort of institution I’ve ever been in, there have been all kinds of disagreement. I’m not in SWP but from the sidelines, ie without responsibility to that organisation (so they were quite entitled to tell me to fuck off) I made an observation. There were replies and a bit of a debate. I’m not quite sure why this has been constructed here as ’shabby’ treatment. People disagreed with me. tut tut. People said I was wrong. tut tut. But then that’s not set in stone, anymore than any organisation’s policies are.

What Positive Internet said.

“I can see this fast moving towards the usual HP level of approach towards me”. Ok, how would you ideally like to see the discourse move? I ask this as a genuine question. You seem upset by strong dialectic, and that’s ok. So what would you like instead? What would be a “fantasy” response to you on this forum? Again, I’m not being fatuous: I genuinely would like to know what it would take to engage with you properly about these issues. At the moment, my perhaps unfair impression is that you’re exerting most of your energy to defend what, if only a few variables were changed, you would have no intention of defending. Am I being unfair?

I think the complaint may have arisen from the inference that Jenna was giving credence to a right-wing hatemonger (not “the implication”, you will note).

Of course, it may also have something to do with your strange decision to publish a photograph of Jenna. She is now receiving hate-mail and threats which I have advised her to pass on to the police.

Thank goodness for your fearless reporting.

Mike,

not being rude, but what is it about the middle classes mentality that means they want to talk, at length, about things they know nothing of? as in:

“93. Oh and I know absolutely nothing about ISPs or their proclivities,which seems to put me in a similar position to most people posting here.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 27 August, 2008 @ 7:09 pm”

I can’t understand it myself.

modernity,you said, “they ignored you and kept inviting him.”

There are at least two factual errors in that statement, but don’t let that inconvenience you.

tim, I had no idea you thought you were in a position whereby you had the kind of power that could ‘let me off’ anything. All hail!

and yes, I haven’t found the post that explains how HP got restored. Quick number check for me, please?

Mark et al - have you got the wording of the complaint? I could say that you slander me here, but it would be a worthless ‘complaint’.

Meal on the table, exit MR

Mr Rosen. Would you care to comment on Delich’s bald claim that the article in question was ‘fact’?

Of course, it may also have something to do with your strange decision to publish a photograph of Jenna. She is now receiving hate-mail and threats which I have advised her to pass on to the police.

What, because of a photo?

“Well, I wasn’t going to send her some hate mail, but now I know what she looks like… Into the post it goes!”

What strange logic.

Tony Baritone,

again, should the police get involved I imagine the whole contents of the UCU “activists” list would be made public and the barely concealed contempt for Jews by some of the posters will be fully exposed, I wonder if that is really what UCU “activists” want?

and the UCU leadership shabby conduct would come out too, see Engage for full details, http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/

Of course, it may also have something to do with your strange decision to publish a photograph of Jenna. She is now receiving hate-mail and threats which I have advised her to pass on to the police.

What, because of a photo?

“Well, I wasn’t going to send her some hate mail, but now I know what she looks like… Into the post it goes!”

What strange logic.

Indeed, almost infantile.

Michael,

I think people assume that bloggers and denizens of the blogosphere in general know how the Internet works - at least at the level that a website:

needs to physically be on a computer somewhere in the world,
The computer needs a place to phyically be too - like a room or datacentre
the computer needs to be attached to a service that allows other computers to communicate with it.
Additionally secondary services (like a web address) are useful, otherwise it is hard or impossible to find.

All of these things are provided by companies, sometimes all the same company and sometimes various different ones.

If one of the companies stops doing their bit, then the website disappears.

In this case, the people in charge of the name hurryupharry.org stopped it going to this website. The site was still physically here, unchanged, but nobody could get to it.

Rosen wrote:

“There are at least two factual errors in that statement, but don’t let that inconvenience you.”

Why do you bother evading this issue?

because either you didn’t tell the SWP leadership until it was too late? and there are implications to that, or you told them about Atzmon early on (remember the picket) and they chose to ignore you

Which was it? or didn’t you tell them at all?

try at least to be logical about it.

Shorter version:

either

1) you didn’t tell them
2) you did tell them but too late
3) or you told the SWP leadership about Atzmon’s racism and they ignored it

is there another alternative?

tim, I had no idea you thought you were in a position whereby you had the kind of power that could ‘let me off’ anything. All hail!

Its a Midlands expression Michael, I thought your work may have informed you.
Or is it naive day,ISPs, KKK’s, SWP’s

Hooray, welcome back and everything, and perhaps having one’s site closed down after publishing a photograph of a private figure along with details of where they work and in what capacity and their private correspondence might be a future deterrent to publishing a photograph of a private figure along with details of where they work and in what capacity and their private correspondence. Win-win!

Could a FOI request to daily.co.uk reveal the identity of the cowardly fascist cushman shitbag?

I doubt daily.co.uk is a public body.

“…having one’s site closed down after publishing a photograph of a private figure along with details of where they work and in what capacity and their private correspondence…”

Was that information secret then? Was it not out in the public domain for all to see (if they cared to look) before the original posting?

Rosen, one error is that she’s an academic. Which is t’other?

GRIMM

Mr. Rosen is trying to draw the pack away from Delich’s egregiousness by trying to create an argument about who was primarily shut down HP.

I really have to ask how much support for Frank Ellis floated on top of your cess-pit. Was he being a bit egregious by promoting BNP literature?

Of course, it may also have something to do with your strange decision to publish a photograph of Jenna.

A photograph which is in the public domain, of a woman who advertizes herself as a “political activist”, with the kudos of her position at Sheffield College and on official union e-mail lists with (I assume) her work e-mail addy, and would not shy away from associating her fissog with named campaigns.

She is now receiving hate-mail and threats which I have advised her to pass on to the police.

I can appreciate just how distressing it is to be threatened via e-mail, and support appropriate police action when egregiousness occurs.

Welcome back HP. And good work Modernity.

Wardytron, Ms Delich ceased to be a private figure when she started participating on a mailing list advocating actions that run counter to the Race Relations Act. I think you will find what HP did filed under “fair comment”.

…. anyway, hope someone’s working on Junkbox Jury #6

Hmmmm…links to David Dukes? I remember he was in Tehran, in the notorious Holocaust denial conference held by Ahmadinejad administration. Are these people so powerful in West??

Alec.
At the time of the Ellis affair:
But on Thursday, university secretary Roger Gair said in a statement that details of the disciplinary process “must remain a private matter” between employer and employee.

In publicising his personal views on race and other matters, Dr Ellis had acted in breach of the university’s equality and diversity policy, “and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values”.
He had “recklessly jeopardised” the fulfilment of the university’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
He had failed to comply with “reasonable requests” - for example, to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people, or to give an undertaking he would make no further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another “unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds”.

Yes, Tim, I largely agree with that. This extends, by the way, to extracting the identity of whomever made the complaint to Daily. ‘Fraid it should remain priviledged. There’s major egg on their face, though.

Where individuals hold toxic views which do not contravene laws or interfere with their jobs, I am agnostic about the benefits of dismissing/disciplining them. However, Delich and Ellis both appear to have used their respective positions to attach greater weight to their views, neither of which are related to their professional interests. I can see why black or Jewish (and sane) students may be concerned about what level of care they would receive.

Is this the same Michael Rosen that writes poetry for small children?

Wardytron, Ms Delich ceased to be a private figure when she started participating on a mailing list advocating actions that run counter to the Race Relations Act. I think you will find what HP did filed under “fair comment”.

Imagine some idiot or other set up a blog called “MorgothWatch”, on the grounds that you ceased to be a private figure when you started participating on this blog, and then published photographs of you and things you’d written and information about where you worked. You’d consider that fairly shabby behaviour, I hope.

“the people in charge of the name hurryupharry.org stopped it going to this website.”

Which people and why?
I’m honestly still baffled as to how this done and who does it.

modernity, I know you play out the role of inquisitor and long may you enjoy it. However, you may have noticed that it’s inquisition without power. You made a statement about being ignored. I’m suggesting to you that this is wrong. When people disagree it’s quite possible to have discussions (that’s the opposite of being ignored, I think) and it’s possible for one conclusion to be drawn at one point in time and then another at a later stage. At no stage do I remember anyone ignoring what I was saying, which, all things considered, an organisation that I don’t belong to was quite entitled to do. Secondly, I don’t think the reaction to what I wrote was that the SWP ‘kept inviting’ GA. Perhaps you’ve got numbers of invitations at hand.

So far Delich doesn’t seem to be in the same category.
She may be a little dim and not realise who David Duke is and therefore not know that her union,which sailed close to breaching the Race Relations Act,would be harmed by her actions.

Although, in suspending her from the UCU list and citing “previous” the Union may well be aware.

“the kudos of her position at Sheffield College”

Most amusing

Does anyone at, say, Oxford or Cambridge participate in the UCU?

Or is it not really for what we understand to be academics at all?

Michael,
When I tipped off Galloway about Atzmon,he pulled out of a gig with him.
When you tipped off the SWP,what did they,and Martin Smith in particular do?

Why on earth don’t you use an ISP in a country where freedom of speach means something, and IPSs don’t do the bidding of 2-bit anti-semites ?

Why is Michael Rosen so worked up about the possibility that HP was pulled upon Delich’s complaint made on the advice of Michael Cushman?

OK, it is conceivable that HP was pulled upon some other complaint which did not originate, in some form, from Jenna Delich. But it is hardly unreasonable to speculate or even assume that it was.

And why does he suddenly appear on the thread to complain about it?

Odd.

Why on earth don’t you use an ISP in a country where freedom of speach means something, and IPSs don’t do the bidding of 2-bit anti-semites ?

01001001001000000110001001100101011011000110100101100101011101
10011001010010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000110
10010111001100100000011101110110100001100001011101000010000001
11010001101000011001010111100100100000011010000110000101110110
01100101001000000110111001101111011101110010000001100100011011
11011011100110010100101110

Mike Rosen wrote:

At no stage do I remember anyone ignoring what I was saying, which, all things considered, an organisation that I don’t belong to was quite entitled to do.”

and “I’m honestly still baffled as to how this done and who does it.”

Mike,

Even if I had the patience to explain how all this works and I could do it several times over, from your above statements I don’t think you get it.

You don’t understand and won’t understand, your grasp of these things is poor, that is evidenced by your previous statement on Atzmon.

The SWP leadership clearly ignored you, not at the time they patted your head and said “yes Mike, yes Mike”, because they kept inviting him. By their ACTIONS they ignored your advice.

How many years was Aztmon invited to Marxism xxxx ? about four years? It took you and them for years to work out that Aztmon was a racist, and to do something about. That’s a long time.

On that basis, you are a bit slow, so instead of asking us basic questions about technology, why not pop along to Beeb’s IT section, they’ll probably explain it at length, but this is not a forum for technology, it’s about the politics of the issue.

So if you wish to engage with that, fine, and if not, well best go back to Lenin’s Tomb :)

Imagine some idiot or other set up a blog called “MorgothWatch”, on the grounds that you ceased to be a private figure when you started participating on this blog, and then published photographs of you and things you’d written and information about where you worked. You’d consider that fairly shabby behaviour, I hope.

I’m not aware that I’ve ever broken the law, Wardytron. That’s the difference.

Additionally, I do not post under my employer’s name or email address, nor do I associate my postings with a website where I have photographs.

Honesty Wardy, you’re being an arse.

Imagine some idiot or other set up a blog called “MorgothWatch”, on the grounds that you ceased to be a private figure when you started participating on this blog, and then published photographs of you and things you’d written and information about where you worked. You’d consider that fairly shabby behaviour, I hope.

Wardy, when has Morgoth ever willingly provided a photograph of… no… when has Morgoth ever revealed where he works and attempted to derive benefit from that in promoting his anarchist, satanist dribble?

“Which people and why?
I’m honestly still baffled as to how this done and who does it.”

The computers on the internet are all known by numbers called an IP Address (e.g. 64.28.144.34). This isn’t very easy to understand or remember for a human so another program called DNS (Domain Name Server) was created that maps human friendly Domain Names to IP Addresses (e.g. google.com). This doesn’t happen by itself. Instead you pay a company to setup and maintain control of the link between the IP address of the computer running the website and the Domain Name - this is very often the same one hosting the web site computer. What happened in this case is the company running the maintenance of the link to the Domain Name (hurryupharry.org) in response to a third party making threats of potential legal action removed the link from the Domain Name to the IP address. As the owners of Harrys Place own the right to use the Domain Name they transfered the maintenance of the link between IP Address and Domain Name to someone that didn’t bend over in a stiff breeze.

Bit of license taken with the inner gubbins of how the internet works to simplify things but thats the gist.

The poet? Anyone…..?

The poet? Anyone…..?

Zkharya wrote:

“Why is Michael Rosen so worked up about the possibility that HP was pulled upon Delich’s complaint made on the advice of Michael Cushman?”

not sure, either he’s too thick to understand the post or simply concede HP’s rendition of events, either is possible

to be honest, nowadays, those in or around the SWP ain’t too bright, anything is possible with them

michael rosen, I’ll happily explain to you how the internet, servers and dns etc work. What I can’t explain though is who exactly did what in this case, although I can explain what affect it had; this isn’t really the thread to do it on though.

Alex

I really have to ask how much support for Frank Ellis floated on top of your cess-pit. Was he being a bit egregious by promoting BNP literature?

I wasn’t implying she was simply naive, just a complete and deplorable fool for even going to a racist website.

Roget: Main Entry: egregious
Part of Speech: adjective
Synonyms: blatant, deplorable, flagrant, gross, heinous, outrageous, shocking.

So the cess pit remark is just shitty.

I really would not make too much of this. This Jenna Delich bod is a rootless pseudo-iconoclast semi-intellectual who will disappear up her own fundament pretty soon. Meanwhile, if you don’t want that to happen, and there are good reasons for not wanting it, can’t you come up with some way of sueing the arse off her and/or this Cushman guy, for something like causing an obstruction on the public information highway or something? Public nuisance stuff?

Or better still, my missus thinks that anyone wearing pink should be shot out of hand anyway, on the grounds it’s betraying the sisterhood (or something).

Anyway I have emailed all the contacts listed on the UCU website asking them to justify themselves.

I’ve invoiced Tel Aviv, obviously.

I’m not aware that I’ve ever broken the law, Wardytron. That’s the difference.

Ever? Well that puts you one up on me. But did Jenna Delich? Either way I don’t care; I wouldn’t have published something like that about someone of no great significance.

Snag,

One and the same.

Thank you very much Meh. That’s very kind of you. Now when you say, ‘the company running the maintenance of the link to the Domain Name (hurryupharry.org) in response to a third party making threats of potential legal action removed the link’, who in such a company would do that and why? To me it seems incredible, (as you imply with your ‘bend over in a stiff breeze’) that someone running such a company would piss away their trade at the whiff of a ‘complaint’ on behalf of another party. And why, when all’s said and done, are neither the ‘complaint’ or the judgement to pull HP made public so we can lock horns and get down to the usual bloggish ‘you heap of shits’ over what was actually said and done rather than surmises and ‘it’s assumed thats’?

One of the bright young people Laird appointed as a Graduate Trainee at the time was Michael Rosen. He had been a student activist and well-known actor and dramatist at Oxford University in the late 1960s. During his interviews with the BBC Rosen made no secret of his Marxist views. And during his training he was equally uncompromising, making a radio documentary about the French Marxist Regis Debray.

In 1972 Rosen was sacked and told that no department would offer him a job. He was offered a £330 ex-gratia payment by Owen Reed, head of Staff Training, and told. “We think it would be better if you went freelance.’ In fact, at least two departments, Arts Features and Further Education, wanted to employ him but were prevented from doing so because there was a ‘security problem’. According to John Laird, who was in charge of Graduate Trainees, ‘I was called by the chairman of one board who said: “You’ll be glad to know we’ve appointed Rosen.” Then he called again, embarrassed, and said it had been “blocked”.’ Fortunately for Rosen he was sufficiently talented to overcome being blacklisted. He has since become a successful writer of plays and children’s poetry books, and frequently appears on television.

Seumas Milnes dad fucked up Michaels career once.
I suspect he’s a bit sensitive about this sort of thing.

I don’t know if he’ll actually go as far as supporting delich though.

Brownie, thank you.

meh, is that true -it looks to me like the dns was simply restored by daily.co.uk.

I’m interested in the sequence of events because I’ve never come accross a nameserver hosting company withdrawing dns records before, usually it is the company hosting the content on it’s servers who come under pressure because they can be seen to have published the offending material. Harry’s place itself seems to be hosted on servers in the US (as implied by the .org domain name) with just the dns in the uk. Presumably whoever got the dns record pulled didn’t realise this.

The following to be read in light of your bold statements that, “We have posted nothing defamatory, and we stand by the information we have supplied.”

So, what was that information? Well, you claimed that “The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke’s website.”

Now, this information, by which you stand, is of course a load of bollocks, and comes, I suspect, from your pasting of some of the text into Google and finding nothing other than Dukey’s webpage. This might be a good time to reflect on whether or not you are best suited to lecture Jenna Delich on academic practice. Because, of course, the same article can be found at
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24304&hd=0&size=1&l=e
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_archive.html
http://www.sott.net/signs/friendly/signs_20060629_friendly.html
and
http://www.trytolive.com/c0772.htm

So, now that the “information” you have supplied turns out to be pretty worthless, let us look at the inference that you drew from this dodgy information. To whit, “It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.”

Of course, it would be reasonable to expect somebody to infer this if you knew that the person doing the inferring was acting in bad faith. But this is not the same as saying that it was a “reasonable” inference. It strikes me that there are three genuinely reasonable inferences:

1. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is and believes that his website offers insightful information about Israel.
2. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is, yet, despite this, believed that the article she had read, and which was not written by Duke, was not tainted by its inclusion on the webpage of an ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
3. Jenna Delich does not know who David Duke is and posted the link, with the intention of endorsing the content of the article.

Of course, should anyone with half a brain be reading this, they would appreciate that only Option 1 would allow you to assert - or imply- that Jenna Delich is “a David Duke fan”. By no stretch of the imagination do any of the three options allow one to “reasonabl[y] infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.” This is, of course, potentially defamatory not only to Jenna Delich, but also to Joe Quinn because it appears to label him, as the author of the information that Jenna Delich forwards, a “neo Nazi”.

A defamatory statement is one which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people; which injures a person’s reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided. A review of some of the responses to this blog about Jenna Delich would appear to support the complaint that the claims you make about her are defamatory.

The most common defences against defamation are those of fair comment and justification which, unfortunately for yourselves, both rely upon the claims that you publish being true.

A website host may become liable for defamatory claims under the Defamation Act of 1996.

It is with great pleasure that I am going to copy a cleaned-up version (no rude words) of this message to Jenna Delich, the UCU activists list and to daily.co.uk. I am all in favour of the truth being published, but when you start defaming a person who made what I am prepared to recognise as an elementary mistake; when you publish a photograph of that person that allows them to be identified and targetted for abuse; and when you have based your claims upon non-facts and spurious inferences, then I think you deserve everything that you get.

For the numbskulls who think that this is an affront to all that is sacred in society, I would point out the blindingly obvious fact that just because something is published, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

Goodbye!!!

It is good you are back.

Martin:

I dunno I’ve not actually fact checked any of the details but these chaps were posting a little way above after the DNS was restored:

http://www.positive-internet.com/

Micheal:

There was a case (someone vs. BT Internet) that made companies in the UK liable for the contents hosted by their servers. As Martin says this is the first time I’ve heard of a company purely providing nameserver facilities doing similar. Although as he says the content is hosted in the US so they wouldn’t have been able to threaten the company hosting it as easily. As for the whys and wherefores this article gives a non-law speak look at it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/711782.stm

meh, on this matter you’re a mensh and thanks for avoiding the usual HP stream of insults.

If it’s the ‘first time’ such a thing has happened, are we to assume this is going to happen more often? Or have you got an explanation for such drastic action over what seems to have been an ‘implied’ threat of legal action by someone acting as a proxy for someone else? Er a bit insubstantial, no? Or was it the temp on the night shift who pulled the lever by mistake?

tim, you may know otherwise, (or think that you do)(or would like others to think that you do) but I understood that Milne had nothing to do with it.

Martin Ohr,

I’d give up on Rosen, he’s either very thick or so dishonest it is not worth talking about.

AVPS asked him a direct question:

“Now, enough pussy footing around Michael. Instead of trying to tie the issue up in minutiae, do you support this attack on HP, and thereby the possibility of it setting a precedent, or not?

Comment by a very public sociologist — 27 August, 2008 @ 9:02 pm “

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2763#comment-88592

and got waffle as an answer from Rosen.

my view is that Mike Rosen doesn’t know his arse from his elbow, but can’t admit it, or concede the bleeding obvious, so its not worth discussing these simple issues with him, he wouldn’t understand either way

To be boring running whois from this laptop give me:

Domain ID:D149659200-LROR
Domain Name:HURRYUPHARRY.ORG
Created On:05-Nov-2007 15:14:02 UTC
Last Updated On:27-Aug-2008 15:59:24 UTC
Expiration Date:05-Nov-2010 15:14:02 UTC

Name Server:DNS0.POSITIVE-INTERNET.COM
Name Server:DNS1.POSITIVE-INTERNET.COM

Michael - Simply put this may have happened many times before but this is the first time I’ve seen it. Generally you wouldn’t hear anything about it unless the person/people/group that it happened to kicked up a fuss. As you can see it took less than 24 hours to restore service running from another service provider. It’s certainly not out of the bounds of reason given our crazy libel laws and their application to internet service providers as detailed in the BBC article previously linked. These days the threat of a lawsuit and the slightest hint that there might be a case is usually enough to have a UK based service provider running for the hills. It’s sad really.

Okay enough posting. I’m starting to make less and less sense!

We’ve got this latest libelous crap back on the blogburst circuit:

Support Harry’s Place Blogburst Part 2: Harry’s Place Offline?

modernity, good to see you taking the high ground on this one. If you want to make definitive statements about reports of implied complaints made on behalf of third parties, then bully for you. If you want to assume that just because an anonymous representative of a fairly anonymous company takes an action, then this has some clear significance, then again bully for you. I’d rather wait till I knew who wrote what to whom, and why whoever it was took the action they talk. Terribly legalistic (dare I say Halachic) of me, but I can see you’re in your freeflowing abuse mode at the mo, so small matters of documentation are a bit irrelevant for you.

Following on, now that you’re up and running again, presumably this implied threat on behalf of a third party is going to be implied again to your new server?

Sorry: ‘took the action they took’ not ‘they talk’.

Michael,
I’m sure your Milne sources are better than mine.

Galloway dropped a gig with Atzmon when i tipped him off.
What did the SWP and Martin Smith in particular do when you tipped them off about Atzmons racism?

the thing is that whilst discussing the ins and out, and getting free lessons on how the web works, the wider issues of racism on the UCU activists list are conveniently ignored

the issue of how people can say “Having read the article, I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make. Duke only really reveals himself as a raving White supremacist on the “about” page.”

even when THAT particular page is strikingly racist in content and doesn’t require anyone to go to the “about” page before drawing that conclusion

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4486641877026778105&postID=6011765618862885943&isPopup=true

if people can read Duke’s web site and not see the racist filth dripping from each page then they should seek serious help

Just back to apologise for de-railing the discussion and proffer support for modernity’s post at 10:01 pm. Wood for the trees and all that.

Michael,

We recieved a communication from Daily that they were pulling the DNS becasue, in their words, we had made slanderous comments towards someone who had subsequently complained directly to Daily. So far as I’m aware, we were given no details of the supposed slander (which in any event is libel if it’s anything). There is no mystery over the action taken and as this was a formal communication from a customer services manager, you can rule out an over-eager temp on the nightshift pulling the lever.

The only mystery is who was the complainant and what was the substance of the complaint? As we are entitled to non-disruptive service as a customer, we intend to discover the details of the accusation made against us and to which we were refused right to respond.

Feel free to agree how deplorable this all is.

Michael Rosen,

Out of interest, why were not the Jews Against Zionism, Jews for the Boycott of Israeli Goods, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the list goes on groups not publishing long diatribes against Jenna Dilich?

You know as well as I know, that the Marxist approach re Israel is that Israel does the bidding of US Imperialism and not the other way round. We can look no further than the title of John Rose’s 1986 pamphlet, Israel the Hijack State: America’s Watchdog in the Middle East to realise this. The SWP, along with the Rance/Greenstein based Jews Against Zionism would reject the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt thesis on the Israel lobby.

Where were you when Delich was linking to David Duke? Where was the SWP when Delich was linking to David Duke? Where were Greenstein and Rance when Delich was linking to David Duke? Where was Mark Elf when Delich was linking to David Duke? A startling silence at best and, in the case of Mike Cushman for one, an apologiser for Delich.

If I recall correctly, you claim you stand with the tradition of the Jews who fought the British fascists on Cable Street. Well, in their memory if in nothing else, why have I not seen a long diatribe against Delich by either yourself or David Rosenberg or the rest of the Jewish anti-Zionist semi-minyan?

Rosen wrote:

“presumably this implied threat”

you are decidedly unclear for a wordsmith!

“Feel free to agree how deplorable this all is.”

So are you going to sue them for pulling the plug ?

ops, not technical enough to fix the italics :(

Blimey, it’s flowing freely now.
tim, I didn’t ‘tip off’ the SWP. I know you work on the smoke-filled room theory of world politics but it doesn’t follow from that, that’s how or why things happen.

I’ll come back to Mikey in a mo.

Thanks for your comment Brownie. You wrote: There is no mystery over the action taken and as this was a formal communication from a customer services manager. Surely this means that there is a mystery, because some trigger happy functionary decided that one complaint (which was either reported non-legalistically, or was issued non-legalistically, you say, muddling slander with libel etc) was sufficient reason for this server to give up on a few hundred quid of business with you. So this act of censorship (which I agree it is) wasn’t carried out for legally informed reasons. Just a customer services manager? Or do you think this csv, took legal advice? And is this what awaits all of us in blogland henceforth.

modernity, clearly, I haven’t succeeded in explaining that it’s usually advisable to be cautious about jumping to conclusions if you haven’t got documents of intent in front of you. All the statments that people have posted here, are second hand, anonymous and about implied acts. As I’ve said, if that’s good enough for you, so be it.

tim, I didn’t ‘tip off’ the SWP. I know you work on the smoke-filled room theory of world politics but it doesn’t follow from that, that’s how or why things happen.

OK.
Who did you inform of your concerns and what did they do?

So this act of censorship (which I agree it is) wasn’t carried out for legally informed reasons.

I don’t believe so, but this is kinda the point. Threats of taking hosting companies, ISPs and domain registration companies to court over content on sites they host/support can be enough given the state of this country’s libel laws. Everyone is frit. You seem to think that becasue the decision to dump us wasn’t legally sound no-one should worry. It’s precisely the opposite because the compalint doesn’t need to have any basis in fact to get the desired results i.e. content withdrawn, sites shut down.

mikey, I’m sure this is what you’re asking: I was on holiday, then I was involved with my father’s funeral and aftermath (thank you for wishing me a long life) then i was at the Edinburgh festival and today I was shvitsing over backlogs of work, then doing a performance at Hackney library and in between seeing my kids and trying to catch the Arsenal scores.

i will now also try to catch up on what is actually known about what people, including Delich, linked to, said, didn’t say. I have no idea why the organisations have done what they’ve done as I’m not an exec in any of them.

I enjoy the HP hurdle-setting method of political arguing. There’s something delightfully patrician about it, where posters here who don’t usually declare what hurdles they’re clearing, make announcements as to what hurdles othes should be leaping o’er. You may know each other, but for a punter on the outside, you are mostly anonymous and for all we know, you might murder babies on your days off. There’s some strange mis-match between what some of you anonymous or pseudonymous folk publicly demand of others and what little you fess up to publicly about yourselves. Still, that’s blogland, isn’t it?

I mean, look at the asymmetry of the conversations I’m having with “tim”. I’m MichaelRosen, so he makes all sorts of comments about eg what I was doing forty years ago (totally legit thing to do) but I can’t ask the equivalent question back about where he’s coming from or why because he’s the unassailable “tim”. This isn’t a complaint, because if it were, all I need to do is fuck off. It’s an observation about why blogland isn’t real-land when it comes to debate, discussion and argument. Mikey’s questions to me would be all the more valid if I had any idea who Mikey is or what he does when it comes to ‘action’. So be it.

Does anyone think they’d recognise Ms Delich from the picture? Looks like it’s been through one of those raster effects they use on the telly to disguise people. You’d need to ask her if she’d seen any good sites lately for Israel/Palestine info at least.

“You seem to think that becasue the decision to dump us wasn’t legally sound no-one should worry. It’s precisely the opposite because the compalint doesn’t need to have any basis in fact to get the desired results i.e. content withdrawn, sites shut down.”

Exactly.

Strange…my messages about how your false claims that the Joe Quinn article is only to be found on David Duke’s site do not appear to be appearing here. And the same messages point to how your postings are actually defamatory too!

And there was me thinking that you were arguing for how the truth must out! Who would have thought…

Welcome back!

Michael Rosen displays his usual reading comprehension issue.

This regards the Hurry Up Harry blog (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/#comment-219632).

A brief background: a Sheffield-based individual posted a link on a University and College’s Union mailing list. The link was about the actions of Israel in Palestine and is to a page hosted at http://www.davidduke.com/general/humanitarian-disaster_595.html.

On http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/#comment-219632 the writer claims, “We have posted nothing defamatory, and we stand by the information we have supplied.” My contention is that by labelling Jenna Delich a “David Duke fan” (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/); by appearing to label Joe Quinn a “neo-nazi” (same reference) and by openly inviting - and publishing - ridicule of Ms Delich, the writer’s are culpable of defaming both Ms Delich and Mr Quinn. As the host of such defamatory material, you may also be liable.

The writer claimed that “The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke’s website.” This information, by which the writer stands, is untrue. The same article can be found at

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24304&hd=0&size=1&l=e
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_archive.html
http://www.sott.net/signs/friendly/signs_20060629_friendly.html
and
http://www.trytolive.com/c0772.htm

The writer claims that “It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.”

It strikes me that there are three genuinely reasonable inferences:

1. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is and believes that his website offers insightful information about Israel.
2. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is, yet, despite this, believed that the article she had read, and which was not written by Duke, was not tainted by its inclusion on the webpage of an ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
3. Jenna Delich does not know who David Duke is and posted the link, with the intention of endorsing the content of the article.

Only Option 1 would allow one to assert - or imply- that Jenna Delich is “a David Duke fan”. By no stretch of the imagination do any of the three options allow one to “reasonabl[y] infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.” This is, of course, potentially defamatory not only to Jenna Delich, but also to Joe Quinn because it appears to label him, as the author of the information that Jenna Delich forwards, a “neo Nazi”.

A defamatory statement is one which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people; which injures a person’s reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided. A review of some of the responses to this blog about Jenna Delich would appear to support the complaint that the claims the writer makes about her are defamatory. Comments posted at http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/, http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/25/how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/ and http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/ are clearly contemptuous of Ms Delich and expose her to public ridicule.

It is therefore your duty to ensure that the defamatroy material about Jenna Delich and Joe Quinn is removed. I look forward to this happening in the immediate future.

Diarmuid Fogarty

Mer and Michael

I have also never heard of a Registrar repointing a domain name on the basis of a defamation complaint. As I said to you on Socialist Unity and here, Registrars are extremely reluctant to take any action in response to complaints because they almost certainly don’t need to.

But it’s also pretty unusual to complain to a registrar about the content of a website - it’s a bit like complaining to the postman about noisy neighbours, inasmuch as the registrar isn’t the site’s “landlord”.

Now, Mike Cushman mistook the registrar for the web-host (the “landlord”) and encouraged Jenna to complain to them. This we know.

Then someone did complain to the registrar, with a degree of legal menace. And the registrar, perhaps never having dealt with the situation before, caved.

Michael Rosen - I’m hoping your interest in this affair is motivated by good reasons ie getting the full information about this very apparent legalistic outrage before making a public stand against this absurd censorship. As a person in the public eye your stand on that would be important. Perhaps you and your fellow well known HP commenter Linda Grant could get together on that ?

Otherwise, I wonder what you are on here for, banging on in such an obscure and pedantic lawyerish fashion.

Great to have Harry’s Place back, especially so that Delich can continue to be shown up as the despicable person she is.

“You seem to think that becasue the decision to dump us wasn’t legally sound no-one should worry. It’s precisely the opposite because the compalint doesn’t need to have any basis in fact to get the desired results i.e. content withdrawn, sites shut down.”

The reason why I’ve tortuously tried to tease out exactly what was said or not said by whom etc is precisely because I agree with you on this. If it all it takes is for someone to say, in effect, ‘I think I’ve been slandered/libelled by what was said on internet site ‘X’, then yes, blogland is up the creek.

(Incidentally, no one here has shown that HP was threatened with libel.)

“Who is this Jenna Delich anyway ? Is she American ?”

She seems to be a Bosnian, from internal evidence.

She is an ‘academic’ at Sheffield college, sometimes regarded as a British academic institution.

Anyway, what about Dirk Kuyt, eh?

Michael.
To be fair, I commented on what other people were doing to you.
Not what you were doing.

I don’t know whether you have problems with the anonymity on Lenins Tomb, particularly toward those who maintained links with the anti semite Atzmon long after it was clear what he is.

Galloway knew that to be associated with an anti semite would damage his career (media and political).
The SWP really don’t give a fuck.

I wish I’d checked your site yesterday, Mod. Wow! I had no idea all this was going on. I thought HP simply ran out of bandwidth again. :)

Anyways, nicely done.

“Incidentally, no one here has shown that HP was threatened with libel”

Confused is not the word. Actually, confused IS the word. You don’t get ‘threatened with libel’.

And this is from a supposed author???

Michael, I can’t say that I agree with you about anything, but still, please accept my condolences on the death of your father.

And sorry about the pseudonym.

quisquis

This regards the Hurry Up Harry blog (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/#comment-219632).

A brief background: a Sheffield-based individual posted a link on a University and College’s Union mailing list. The link was about the actions of Israel in Palestine and is to a page hosted at http://www.davidduke.com/general/humanitarian-disaster_595.html.

“We have posted nothing defamatory, and we stand by the information we have supplied.”

My contention is that by labelling Jenna Delich a “David Duke fan” (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/); by appearing to label Joe Quinn a “neo-nazi” (same reference) and by openly inviting - and publishing - ridicule of Ms Delich, the writer’s are culpable of defaming both Ms Delich and Mr Quinn.

The writer claimed that “The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke’s website.” This information, by which the writer stands, is untrue. The same article can be found at http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24304&hd=0&size=1&l=e and
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_archive.html and
http://www.sott.net/signs/friendly/signs_20060629_friendly.html
and http://www.trytolive.com/c0772.htm

The writer claims that “It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.”

It strikes me that there are three genuinely reasonable inferences:

1. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is and believes that his website offers insightful information about Israel.
2. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is, yet, despite this, believed that the article she had read, and which was not written by Duke, was not tainted by its inclusion on the webpage of an ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
3. Jenna Delich does not know who David Duke is and posted the link, with the intention of endorsing the content of the article.

Only Option 1 would allow one to assert - or imply- that Jenna Delich is “a David Duke fan”. By no stretch of the imagination do any of the three options allow one to “reasonabl[y] infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.” This is, of course, potentially defamatory not only to Jenna Delich, but also to Joe Quinn because it appears to label him, as the author of the information that Jenna Delich forwards, a “neo Nazi”.

A defamatory statement is one which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people; which injures a person’s reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided. A review of some of the responses to this blog about Jenna Delich would appear to support the complaint that the claims the writer makes about her are defamatory. Comments posted at http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/22/ucu-and-the-david-duke-fan/, http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/25/how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/ and http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/ are clearly contemptuous of Ms Delich and expose her to public ridicule.

It is therefore your duty to ensure that the defamatroy material about Jenna Delich and Joe Quinn is removed. I look forward to this happening in the immediate future.

Diarmuid Fogarty

Incidentally, no one here has shown that HP was threatened with libel.

So what? HP aren’t claiming that they were threatened with libel.

Baffling.

“for all we know, you might murder babies on your days off”

This wouldn’t be the royal ‘we’, eh, Michael?

And then you accuse others of being ‘patrician’.

ROFL.

MMN, thanks for the prompt. Yes, I am trying to find out the exact facts on who said what to whom and when, (unseen clarifies further), and at the same time trying to figure out who these shadowy people are ‘Registrars’ etc, and on what basis they make such decisions because, yes, I am against this kind of censorship.

“if people can read Duke’s web site and not see the racist filth dripping from each page then they should seek serious help”

Can’t be stressed often enough - and I think most people here have not forgotten that this is the core issue.

Gimme a break - threat of libel action, I meant. Ever typed too quick, or are you gods of the fucking keyboard?

Nearly O, the ‘we’ was the same we who read blogs full of pseudonymous folk. Not the royal ‘we’ but far be it from me to spoil your splendid gag. No one likes to fart at a wedding.

Michael, the point remains that no one at HP is claiming that they have been threatened.

This regards the Hurry Up Harry blog (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/#comment-219632).

“We have posted nothing defamatory, and we stand by the information we have supplied.” “The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke’s website.” This information, by which the writer stands, is untrue.

Not true. The same article can be found on four different sites.

The writer claims that “It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.”

It strikes me that there are three genuinely reasonable inferences:

1. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is and believes that his website offers insightful information about Israel.
2. Jenna Delich knows who David Duke is, yet, despite this, believed that the article she had read, and which was not written by Duke, was not tainted by its inclusion on the webpage of an ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
3. Jenna Delich does not know who David Duke is and posted the link, with the intention of endorsing the content of the article.

Only Option 1 would allow one to assert - or imply- that Jenna Delich is “a David Duke fan”. By no stretch of the imagination do any of the three options allow one to “reasonabl[y] infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.” This is, of course, potentially defamatory not only to Jenna Delich, but also to Joe Quinn because it appears to label him, as the author of the information that Jenna Delich forwards, a “neo Nazi”.

A defamatory statement is one which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people; which injures a person’s reputation by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided. A review of some of the responses to this blog about Jenna Delich would appear to support the complaint that the claims the writer makes about her are defamatory.

meh, you might be right then, that’s a different result to the one I get but the date seems to make more sense than mine.

I have to agree with unseen and others- I work in IT- I’ve never come across a nameserver or registrar withdrawing a record before because of a site’s content. Registrars have a fairly clearly defined role which is simply to handle registrations, Nominet regulates quite heavily with regard to .uk names to ensure sure fair play. .org names presumably orginate from the US, but still you would expect a uk registrar be used to sticking to the nominet way of doing things.

“Gimme a break - threat of libel action, I meant. Ever typed too quick, or are you gods of the fucking keyboard?”

Whatever I think I am, I don’t imagine that I am the plural of anything.
And given your splendid displays of thickness all over this thread, I think it is not outside the bounds of the possible that you don’t understand the concept of libel.

You know, there is a wider story here, of which this latest kerfuffle at HP is but of a piece. If one adds the various blogs that Google has shut down(if only temp.) combined with Obama’s
latest attempt to muzzle his critic’s TV ads via requests to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as well as the FEC (elections commission), one sees just how fragile free speech can be depending on which way the political/cultural/judicial/bureaucratic winds blow.

Current trends do not bode well for the future of the heretofore freewheeling internet and freedom of speech.

Tim:
“To be fair, I commented on what other people were doing to you.
Not what you were doing.”

My stuff, tim. and what were people doing to you, tim? We’re not told.

“I don’t know whether you have problems with the anonymity on Lenins Tomb, particularly toward those who maintained links with the anti semite Atzmon long after it was clear what he is.”

It’s not the anonymity that’s the problem per se. It;s the fact that when the going gets rough, the anons and pseudons united make comments about what this or that known person or organisations should or shouldn’t do, should or should not have done, etc whilst maintaining an invisibilty on these matters themselves.

“Galloway knew that to be associated with an anti semite would damage his career (media and political).
The SWP really don’t give a fuck.”

Has anyone’s career been damaged by associating with Gilad Atzmon? Clearly, you’re on the inner track re the SWP and Gilad A., and on what they care about but as you’re “tim” I can’t test that, can I? More bloggery.

“.org names presumably orginate from the US”

I have seen plenty of commercial .org names that were completely British (company, ISP, the works).
Or do you mean that .org was invented in the US?

Diarmuid,

The fact the information exists at other sites is hardly relevant since the link provided was to Duke’s site.

By no stretch of the imagination do any of the three options allow one to “reasonabl[y] infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis.”

Really? It is perfectly reasonable to infer that Delich reads Duke’s site if she is posting links to it. Given the focus of Duke’s writing i.e. politics and world events, it is equally reasonable that Delich is informed on such matters, at least partially, by a site she reads and approvingly links to.

Fair comment at the very least.

Mark T, “no one here claims to have been threatened,” you say.

I read this off the head post on this thread:

“We assume after threats were made on the weekend…”

Nearly O, you mean you never use the word ‘we’ when describing, say, ‘when we watch TV’ to mean ‘when those of us who watch TV actually do watch TV’ ? That’s very pure of you if you don’t, but I was making the assumption that many people reading blogs know very little or nothing at all about the pseudonymous and anonymous bloggers. If that assumption is wrong, I’ll withdraw the ‘we’.

“Nearly O, you mean you never use the word ‘we’ when describing, say, ‘when we watch TV’ to mean ‘when those of us who watch TV actually do watch TV’ ?”

I don’t. I don’t imagine that I speak for anyone but myself.

Brownie
If one feels capable of inferring something without looking at any context whatsoever, I don’t think one can label that inference “reasonable”.

Ms Delich would be foolish in the extreme were she knowingly to put forward David Duke as a reliable source of information regarding Israel; in addition, subscribers to the UCU list will know that she is not a white supremacist and will know that she has herself pleaded ignorance and apologised for the mistake of not checking her sources. As she is not a university academic, one might be inclined to forgive her.

At the very most it might be reasonable to assume that Ms Delich takes SOME of her information about news from webpages that are HOSTED by a Neo Nazi , but fair comment would require an acknowledgement that there is no implication that she condones or in any way subscribes to David Duke’s ideology.

The fact the information exists at other sites is hardly relevant

It is perfectly relevant. The writer on this blog claimed that they stood by the information that they had published. This information is clearly false.

They told me that if Bush was re-elected the lefty websites I like would mysteriously vanish… and they were right!

Mr Rosen. Again I ask you, what do you have to say, not wriggle out of, about Ms Delich’s bombastic statement that the article she linked to was ‘fact’?

nearly O, and as you’re pseudonymous, I don’t have access to either your writings or your spoken words, so I have no idea whether you’re a) telling the truth b) lying, c) think you’re telling you’re telling the truth whereas you regularly do a ‘we’ in your utterances. Thank you for illustrating the problem with bloggery. May I use that in a radio prog I was thinking of doing on probs with blogs?

Michael, the registrars are not shadowy, their role -unless there is some dispute about domain names- is benign, they keep lists of who owns what domain name up to date. Usually when you purchase -although you only rent the domain name for a set amount of time, which is one reason the companies involved are called registrars rather than vendors or some such- a domain name, a small part of the price goes towards the maintainence of the associated name server records.

As other people have said the purpose of the name servers (DNS servers) hold the information which allows computers to look up a user friendly domain name (eg hurryupharry.org) and retrieve it’s computer-useful internet address (eg 64.13.233.3)

There are many thousands of name servers on the internet, each domain name has one (or a small group) of name servers which are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the rest of the name servers have access to the correct information about that domain name. A change on the name server that is ultimately responsible for a domain name (in internet language this is called the authoritative source) takes some time to find it’s way round the internet because of the way the name servers talk to each other and retain data, but for a normal website any change will be visible to the majority of the internet within 48 hours. In theory only a change to the authoritative name server will have any effect, and name server administrators will only change the name server records if authorised by the registered owner of the domain name or on the instructions of the registrar.

In this case the name server was managed by the registrar for hurryupharry.org. They seemingly deleted the part of the name server record (it’s called the A -for Alias- record) which allows computers to convert the domain name to the internet address. At this stage it is assumed -an no one has contradicted this- that removing the A record was in response to a complaint from an injured party.

The closest analogy I can think of is- you have some complaint against Alton Towers, instead of ringing them to discuss, or bringing in trading standards, or taking them to the small claims court, you instead write a snotty letter to the highways agency and get them to remove all the road signs which direct motorists there. Your complaint is of no interest to the highways agency and they have no authority -moral or legal- to decide on it’s value.

Rosen, you are such a wanker! Goodnight!

“May I use that in a radio prog I was thinking of doing on probs with blogs?”

Thanks for asking, but no.

Grimm, you may have noticed that the way this conversation has been going is that several different people are firing very different questions at me. Apols, could you post the link to Delich’s statements? I see that Diarmuid’s last post says that she apologised. Your comment seems to suggest that she didn’t.

I’ve been spending the evening trying to get a handle on what it takes to get a blog pulled (ie what kind of supposed misdeed, what kind of complaint, to whom who are the censors etc).

May I use that in a radio prog I was thinking of doing on probs with blogs?

That might be interesting. Will you be posting a transcript on your blog, Michael?

“At the very most it might be reasonable to assume that Ms Delich takes SOME of her information about news from webpages that are HOSTED by a Neo Nazi , but fair comment would require an acknowledgement that there is no implication that she condones or in any way subscribes to David Duke’s ideology”

I would suggest that ‘fair comment’ requires only that no categorical statement be made that she does condone DD’s ideology etc. Asking the question, or simply stating the bare facts (’she posted such and such’) and permitting the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, does not constitute defamation, as far as I understand the law (it’s enough of an ass already, but not to that extent).

Sorry you didn’t stay the course, Grimm. I was so enjoying your company and now you’ve gone with no more than a parting HP wave.

And sorry you wouldn’t play along with that one Nearly O.

Anyone else give me the link to Delich’s statement? I couldn’t find it on the link to the Delich affair.

Nearly oxfordian, probably know this already but; .uk names are managed by a uk company/quango Nominet they set the terms under which those domain names can be used and regulate the registrars, intervene and decide in disputes. .org names are ‘owned’/regulated by ICANN which is the US company contracted by US department of commerce to manage domain registration.

Nominet -it has always seemed to me- are quite keen on fair play and registrars limiting their power to serving the registrant, ICANN seem to be totally hands off

Grimm, you may have noticed that the way this conversation has been going is that several different people are firing very different questions at me. Apols, could you post the link to Delich’s statements? I see that Diarmuid’s last post says that she apologised. Your comment seems to suggest that she didn’t.

Her apologies are irrelevant unless she is apologising for averring that the ravings of a racist are FACT. Capiche?

But she isn’t and you are still a prevaricating tosser.

Martin, thanks for that.
Now, I find that several threads (those listed on the left below How They Got Here) are still invisible to my ISP. Are you saying that within 48 hours everything should have cascaded through and they’ll become visible again?

I haven’t got a blog boogski. I tried putting a comments page up for kids to print their poems but nice folks out there sent in paedo stuff.

“In this case the name server was managed by the registrar for hurryupharry.org. They seemingly deleted the part of the name server record (it’s called the A -for Alias- record) which allows computers to convert the domain name to the internet address. At this stage it is assumed -an no one has contradicted this- that removing the A record was in response to a complaint from an injured party.”

That’s the shadowy bit. Who is this person who deleted the part of the etc etc…? Is he or she completely unaccountable and anonymous? And at present, we (sorry Nearly O) don’t know if it was in response to the complaint, but no one has said it wasn’t…er…yet.

Michael Rosen -

This is a potentially libellous statement and I would urge Jenna to contact
hurryupharry’s ISP

Not strictly a threat, but certainly a statement of intent.

I’m kvetching because I am embarassed by the fact

a) Jenna Delich linked to a far-right/anti-semitic website (for the third time, at least, after being warned, twice),

b) this fact was publicized by websites like Harry’s Place,

c) Jenna Delich was advised by Michael Cushman, both of the UCU boycott Israel campaign, to investigate libel proceedings against Harry’s Place for having publicized this embarassing fact,

d) they possibly threatened Harry’s Place’s service provider with legal proceedings unless they pulled Harry’s Place,

e) that this may have resulted in Harry’s Place being pulled and, finally,

f) that such an attempt may have failed and left egg on the faces of such distinguished boycotters (and me, because, you see, I may have wished they could have succeeded) and, by extension, the UCU boycott movement as a whole.

That is why I am here, effectively trying to argue into silence the posters who are saying or suggesting such a series of events may have happened, on the site that publicized the original embarassment, and may have been temporarily shut down as a result, with all its regular posters, most of whom support the site and its publicizing such an embarassment, and making a complete fool of myself.

Grimm, of course I’m a tosser and a wanker, but could you please provide me with the link? At the moment you’re asking me to agree with an anonymous person who’s calling me a tosser and a wanker. Just gimme the link that has Delich’s statement(s). Or do you usually expect people to answer your queries on the basis of what you tell them anonymously?

Michael Rosen is obviously a troll, why do people keep feeding him?

Ah, now an anonymous ‘Michael Rosen’. That caps it all. Just gimme the fekkn link so I can read what the woman said. I can’t find it.

Michael, you need to read up on some of this stuff as the comments boxes of blogs are not the best places to learn about the underlying structure of the internet and the companies that provide it.

However -

Registries and Registrars

The Registries ultimately in charge of the Domain Names themselves. For example, the Registry for any domain name ending in .uk is Nominet, a non-profit organisation. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominet_UK). .com and .net registries are kept by a company called Verisign, and .org by the Public Interest Registry. The registries are regulated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

These companies maintain the master lists of whether a domain name (like hurryupharry.org) has been assigned, and to who.

Next down are Registrars of Record (also called Supporting Registrars). These are big companies, which have a relationship with some or all of the registries. These companies are like wholesalers of domain names, and you can normally buy a name directly from them. hurryupharry.org’s Registrar of Record was Tucows ltd.

Finally come the normal registrars (or resellers, as they are also called). These basically act as agents of a Registrar of Record and cream a little extra profit for themselves. Anyone can be a registrar, you just fill in a form and start selling domain names. No credentials necessary. For hurryupharry.org, this was daily.co.uk

Nameservers

For a domain name to do anything, it has to lead somewhere. Otherwise it’s like buying a personalised number plate. You can’t just strap it to your car, you need to link the number plate and physical car together via the DVLA. In the same way, the domain name needs to be linked to a website or it doesn’t do anything.

This system is called the Domain Name Service (DNS). DNS is basically a huge phonebook that associates domain names with real websites. Whenever you go to a new website, your computer asks its local nameserver where that site is. If the nameserver doesn’t know, it asks its nameserver, and so on until the 13 Root nameservers which hold the master record.

When you buy a domain name, you also have to have a nameserver that will be authoritative for that name. You then tell the nameserver which website you want your domain name to point to. The nameserver tells its nameserver right back up to the 13 root nameservers.

For hurryupharry.org, the nameserver was NS1.DAILY.CO.UK and was also provided by daily.co.uk, the registrar (see above)

the attack

Daily.co.uk took down Harry’s Place by changing the information on the nameserver so instead of hurryupharry.org leading here, it led nowhere. This change took some time to take effect, because the change had to get passed up to the root nameservers, and then back down again. For people looking at Harry’s Place when the change was made, there was probably no difference - their computers didn’t need to ask a nameserver where HP was because they already knew.

But for others, who maybe hadn’t been to the site for a couple of hours or ever before, Harry’s Place was not found. It was still there, but had been wiped off the map of the Internet.

When HP moved to Positive Internet for DNS, again it took some time for the updates to fully filter through.

Sigh … Michael, click on How to avoid re-posting etc, top left of this page.

Michael, a lot of what Delich said can be found here, in the long post by Sophia on 26 August at 7.57 am. Some of this was also posted in other threads on HP earlier.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2257040473367223667&postID=202189287732906397

And now an anonymous anon. You may disagree, but thanks to meh, martin o, and others actually answering some of my queries, I (and perhaps others) now have a much better idea as to how blogland can be fucked over by unaccountable people.

I (and perhaps others) can also see that it’s unwise to make claims about what’s been said or by whom unless I (and perhaps others) know.

I have said that I oppose the censorship of this site by these anonymous cyberlords.

I am quite happy to discuss what Delich said or didn’t say, if I could find it. I doubt whether anyone here would be the faintest bit interested in what I think or say about that. You’ve sorted out your agendas on that one.

“agendas”

You’ve got to laugh.

That’s the shadowy bit. Who is this person who deleted the part of the etc etc…? Is he or she completely unaccountable and anonymous? And at present, we (sorry Nearly O) don’t know if it was in response to the complaint, but no one has said it wasn’t…er…yet.

We don’t know if it was in response to the complaint?

What?

You mean to say HP could have been taken down, for no apparent reason, purely by coincidence, a day after someone was advised to issue a complaint to the ISP?

This is really weak stuff.

Michael Rosen,

I was not aware you recently had a loss. I wish you long life and may you be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

(This is not a political comment.)

I would suggest that ‘fair comment’ requires only that no categorical statement be made that she does condone DD’s ideology etc.

The statement implicit within the title “UCU and the David Duke fan”, above a picture of Ms Delich, would certainly seem defamatory to me. As it appears to have resulted in hurtful, contemptuous (not to mention contemptible) and ridiculing comment, it further weakens any claim to have been justified or fair comment.

Of course, this is a matter for a court to decide, and I believe that Ms Delich is taking legal advice on how best to proceed.

Mr Rosen, I am not asking you to agree with me, merely asking if you think ANY of the statements she links to are fact!

this is the link

http://www.davidduke.com/general/humanitarian-disaster_595.html

right click. drag you mouse across the link and left click ‘copy’. Then paste it into your address bar…that’s at the top of your page.

Michael, you would be shocked how easy it is to get blogs and whole websites pulled. I could, with one malicious phonecall to the right pusillanimous person in the company that hosts your website (www.michaelrosen.co.uk) have it pulled and even deleted completely. This is because of the disastrous chilling effect of England’s ridiculous libel laws, of the abuse of copyright legislation by people like RIAA and the UK equivalents and so on.

Hosting companies and ISPs buckle with the most spurious threats. Over the last year, we’ve had to rescue any number of organisations from their jelly-bellied hosts (BadScience being a recent example - I suggest you read about it at badscience.net).

Now, Cush’s illiteracy had him confuse the domain registrar with the webhost, which is why the circumstantial evidence points directly at Jenna’s having followed his advice. Lucky for her, the registrar was British, whereas the site host is American, which meant that the threat that Cush suggested worked.

If she’d wanted to get the website itself pulled down (rather than just the name that points to it), she would have had to have convoluted that the photo was somehow a breach of copyright (the specious threat of ‘IP violation’ floats the kill-free-speech boat in the US), whereas here, our libel and slander laws or, more accurately, the abuse of them, is what we use to stifle free speech.

I haven’t got a blog boogski.

Well to me, this is a blog:

http://www.michaelrosen.co.uk/

What do you call it? What’s the difference?

Of course, this is a matter for a court to decide, and I believe that Ms Delich is taking legal advice on how best to proceed.

Diarmuid, can you explain what you base that belief on?

Mr Rosen, I apologise for my intemperate and coarse epithets. I am still very angry that you successfully diverted this thread into a discusssion of web protocols etc.

Diarmuid, can you explain what you base that belief on?

On information received.

You’ve been protecting Ben Goldacre from the frigging looney patrol who want the right to sell healing crystals without being harassed by facts or truths?

Well done Positive Internet. We are going to like it here

“I would suggest that ‘fair comment’ requires only that no categorical statement be made that she does condone DD’s ideology etc.

The statement implicit within the title “UCU and the David Duke fan”, above a picture of Ms Delich, would certainly seem defamatory to me. ”

I didn’t say that it isn’t (or that it is). My comment was a response to a different point entirely, namely this one:

“fair comment would require an acknowledgement that there is no implication that she condones or in any way subscribes to David Duke’s ideology”

What I am saying is that fair comment does NOT ‘require an acknowledgement’ etc.

Boogski, I would certainly call that a blog. And for a blog showcasing an author, one that seems to require a disappointing amount of proofreading.

If one feels capable of inferring something without looking at any context whatsoever, I don’t think one can label that inference “reasonable”.

This cuts both ways. See DavidT’s post above that refers to the other content in the same article to which Delich linked. Are we unreasonable to assume that she didn’t read the rest of the article to which she linked? Or other content on the same page that kinda gives the game away about the sort of site she was linking to?

At the very most it might be reasonable to assume that Ms Delich takes SOME of her information about news from webpages that are HOSTED by a Neo Nazi , but fair comment would require an acknowledgement that there is no implication that she condones or in any way subscribes to David Duke’s ideology.

In which solar system? Unless you’re contending it is normal practice to approvingly link to and cite from a website that you don’t “condone”, your above statement means nothing.

We are inferring that she cited and linked because she approved of what she was citing and linking to, and I think it is reasonable to do so.

in addition, subscribers to the UCU list will know that she is not a white supremacist and will know that she has herself pleaded ignorance and apologised for the mistake of not checking her sources.

All three times?

As she is not a university academic, one might be inclined to forgive her.

Yeah, maybe she’s never heard of David Duke? Give it up, mate.

Welcome back. I’m not going to pretend that I like HP, but taking it off-line was something that everyone should have opposed.

Nearly Oxfordian
What I am saying is that fair comment does NOT ‘require an acknowledgement’ etc.

What I am saying is that the title of the piece comes as close as possible to being a categorical assertion that Ms Delich is a David Duke fan and therefore condones his ideology. No evidence is offered in support of this and the article(s) have clearly been written by somebody who is intent upon portraying UCU as an anti-semitic organisation, or an organisation which is unduly tolerant of anti-semitism. There is no attempt at fair comment.

This is a much more reliable defence,
but cannot help you if your comment includes defamatory facts.
The law does not demand the truth of the comment to be proved, but it does test whether it is responsible, constructive and informed. The defendant has to satisfy the jury that the comment was his/her honest opinion and that it was made without malice.
http://www.media-solicitors.co.uk/defamation10.htm

Of course, this is a matter for a court to decide, and I believe that Ms Delich is taking legal advice on how best to proceed.

Good luck to her. As she’s now been barred from the UCU activists list - and given this business of linking to Neo-Nazi sites is not an isolated incident - she’ll need it.

As she is not a university academic, one might be inclined to forgive her.

I still think someone with her poor research, logical and linguistic skills should not be teaching young people. Not to mention her antisemitism.

What I am saying is that the title of the piece comes as close as possible to being a categorical assertion that Ms Delich is a David Duke fan and therefore condones his ideology. No evidence is offered in support of this and the article(s) have clearly been written by somebody who is intent upon portraying UCU as an anti-semitic organisation, or an organisation which is unduly tolerant of anti-semitism. There is no attempt at fair comment.

I suppose this lurch towards fantasy was inevitable.

re blogs, I thought ‘blogs’ were things where people comment on and are part of blogland. I send articles and links to someone who posts them up and designs and redesigns the pages. You seem to be saying that anyone who posts on the net runs a blog.

Nearly O, have you got a pedant button stuck to your finger?

Grimm, I wasn’t diverting anything. I was trying to establish the principle about blogs and censorship by working from the known facts not the alleged ones. It may just possibly turn out that the issue of blog censorship is a bigger and more important one than what one woman writes in her blog about the Middle East or even who she links to or even on how the left views the Middle East. Incredible, eh?

re Delich. I’ve now read the link, gone to Duke’s website, gone to Quinn’s website and am about to read David T’s post above.

Not all blogs permit comments. Posting a series of articles on your site is also blogging.

Rosen, anyone who runs a personal website on which s/he posts information about him/herself runs a blog.

For an author, you seem remarkably unbothered about the terrible grammar on your blog. Ah, well … if you insist on making yourself look like a silly amateur …

Brownie…errr…”mate”
In which solar system? Unless you’re contending it is normal practice to approvingly link to and cite from a website that you don’t “condone”, your above statement means nothing.

Well, let’s see. In the last message to this blog, I cited and linked to a website without fully investigating it (http://www.media-solicitors.co.uk/defamation10.htm). Most of this issue cites and links to posts written by Jenna Delich on the UCU activists list. I am guessing that there is very little love for either Ms Delich or UCU. Yet you cite incessantly. So, I feel fairly confident that many people frequently cite and link to webpages without being as fully aware as they should be about the provenance of their sources.

We are inferring that she cited and linked because she approved of what she was citing and linking to, and I think it is reasonable to do so.
Agreed. She herself admits to approving of what Joe Quinn cited, whilst rejecting Duke’s reliability.

All three times?
I’m sorry? Yes, she rejected Duke three times (COCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!). She did not cite him approvingly three times. She made the point three times that she had made a mistake. This is not the same as making the mistake three times.

It is clear to anybody acting in good faith that Ms Delich’s approval is limited to Joe Quinn’s article. It is also clear that Ms Delich has been made into a target by people intent on shutting down the debate in UCU about Israel’s occupation of Palestine. It is becoming clear to me that this blogis quite prepared to resort to defamation, shoddy research and outright lies in support of the same agenda. Placed alongside the lofty claims made in the “About Us” section, I can only hope that this is a matter of some regret to the founders of this blog.

the law does not demand the truth of the comment to be proved, but it does test whether it is responsible, constructive and informed. The defendant has to satisfy the jury that the comment was his/her honest opinion and that it was made without malice

Its a shame that nations can’t sue mailing lists for libel. These apologists and hypocrites in the UCU are some of the least self-aware creeps to have ever duped “polite” society.

Sorry Michael, but I have to ask.

How the fuck are you going to do a radio program on “the probs with blogs” when you don’t even know what a blog is?

brownie
given this business of linking to Neo-Nazi sites is not an isolated incident

Really? Can you provide facts for this?

I suppose this lurch towards fantasy was inevitable.
Which lurch might that be? Perhaps I have inferred something other than what DavidT intended when he wrote
The UCU refuses to take action against viciousness against Jews and anti-racists on its own activist list, and endorses their exclusion from that email list when they defend themselves. Meanwhile, the UCU is circulating links to David Duke’s website on behalf of Delich. What a wonderful institution UCU is.

Of course, these groundless (and scurrilous) claims were made in the same article where DavidT claimed -erroneously as it turns out- that as Quinn’s article was only published on Duke’s page, it meant that Delich must be a Neo Nazi fan.

I understand that this is no more than a blog and is therefore not subject to any degree of journalistic integrity, but the founder obviously aspired to much more.

shmuel
Its a shame that nations can’t sue mailing lists for libel. These apologists and hypocrites in the UCU are some of the least self-aware creeps to have ever duped “polite” society.
Yes, isn’t it? I imagine that this impediment is exactly what is stopping the State of Israel from setting foot inside a court room!!! I assume that “polite” society refers to that section of society that agrees with you on the question of Israel’s occupation of Palestine? It is clear that this same “polite” society is also meant to include those who label their opponents “creeps”, “hypocrites” and “apologists” (?).

Boogski, it was my attempt at provoking the pedantry afflicted
Nearly O. Don’t worry about it.

Nearly O, am I an “amateur” “tosser” or an “amateur” “useful idiot”? Do you have an abuse button too?

Ah, the penny drops:

“It is also clear that Ms Delich has been made into a target by people intent on shutting down the debate in UCU about Israel’s occupation of Palestine”

There is no ‘occupation’ of ‘Palestine’, you ignoramus.
Moreover, there is no ‘debate’ in UCU, since the membership voted against a boycott and the ‘activists’ were trying to implement it anyway.

I suppose to this silly poster, Stalinist intimidation and other such actions constitute ‘debate’.

Rosen, you need to learn to read, as well as write. I didn’t call you a tosser, whatever I may think of you.

Perhaps you don’t understand that the various posters are separate and distinct individuals. What one poster says, another doesn’t automatically approve of.

Boogski, don’t confuse the idiot with such silly details ;-)

Boogski, it was my attempt at provoking the pedantry afflicted
Nearly O. Don’t worry about it.

You bastard! I was actually intrigued.

He goes on and on about nics, and calls me a pedant! LOL.

Nearly Oxfordian,/b.
There is no ‘occupation’ of ‘Palestine’, you ignoramus.

I suppose to this silly poster, Stalinist intimidation and other such actions constitute ‘debate’.
I note that whilst this “silly poster” manages to refrain from insulting you, you merely manage to dodge answering any of the points of substance that I raise. I have seen more Stalinist intimidation (Stalinist???) spewed up from this site than I have on the UCU list. Incidentally, your supposition is not unlike a suppository in that it might serve you better were you to shove it up your arse.
Mate.

BTW, Nearly Oxfordian. Welcome to the forum. I look forward to your comments. :D

Brownie
Really? Can you provide facts for this?

Silence. Tumbleweed blows across front of stage. A wind is heard whistling. Brownie remains factless. The question remains unanswered. The audience looks at its watch.

Most of this issue cites and links to posts written by Jenna Delich on the UCU activists list. I am guessing that there is very little love for either Ms Delich or UCU. Yet you cite incessantly. So, I feel fairly confident that many people frequently cite and link to webpages without being as fully aware as they should be about the provenance of their sources.

Desperate. The clue would be where you cite/link and say “look at this racist nonsense” or, conversely, “some really interesting stuff here”. Any inference we made was the result of the context surrounding the citations and links provided by Delich.

Do you really think “but people link to sites they don’t approve of all the time” is a suitable counter-argument for anyone over the age of, say, 11?

Diarmuid, you nasty little person, learning to use the html bold function doesn’t make you any less stupid and ignorant. The non-argument that attempts to smear those telling the truth about your murderous Arab friends by supposed association with Holocaust deniers, says a lot more about your sick mind than about anything else.
Now go and learn a little about the Middle East, which you know fuck all about.

Thanks, Boogski.

Diarmuid, you nasty little person, learning to use the html bold function doesn’t make you any less stupid and ignorant.

Actually, I’m rather a big person. And learning how to do something new does actually make you less ignorant, by definition. Of course, it would have been better if I’d learnt how to turn off the html bold function…

The non-argument that attempts to smear those telling the truth about your murderous Arab friends
I don’t have any murderous Arab friends that I am aware of. Perhaps you are resorting to racist stereotypes? Could that be it?

Now go and learn a little about the Middle East, which you know fuck all about.
As an ex-President of Israel, I deeply resent your slur. But am forced to concede that you may have a point.

“93. Oh and I know absolutely nothing about ISPs or their proclivities,which seems to put me in a similar position to most people posting here.

Comment by MichaelRosen — 27 August, 2008 @ 7:09 pm”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2763#comment-88592

so there you have it, Rosen knows nothing, is not really interested and doesn’t believe the contents of the main post

despite people making efforts to educate him, he still knows nothing and wants to distract the thread away from the subject of racism and UCU.

Rosen wrote:

“All the statments that people have posted here, are second hand, anonymous and about implied acts. As I’ve said, if that’s good enough for you, so be it”

NO, they are NOT, Brownie and others have been in contact with Gene, Brett and David T, who are RUNNING the blog.

So that’s the information coming out from them.

If you choose to disbelieve it, because it doesn’t suit you, then NOTHING we can say or do will change that, thus you are really wasting people’s time.

at least be honest about your motives.

Michael,

None of this is made up shit. I can assure you.

Brownie
None of this is made up shit. I can assure you.

Well…your assurances don’t count for much.

1. Where is the evidence that Jenna Delich has repeatedly posted links to Neo Nazi sites?
2. Where is the evidence that Jenna Delich is a “fan” of David Duke?
3. Where is the evidence that “the UCU refuses to take action against viciousness against Jews and anti-racists on its own activist list”?
4. Where is the evidence that the UCU”endorses [the] exclusion [of anti-racists and Jews] from that email list when they defend themselves”?
5. Where is the evidence that ‘the UCU is circulating links to David Duke’s website on behalf of Delich”?

The evidence will not be forthcoming because these are not facts. They are what might be termed made up shit. At the very best, they are wilful misinterpretations of facts that are probably better phrased as follows:
1. Jenna Delich has posted ONE reference to an article that she acknowledged came from a racist and reprehensible site.
2. There is no evidence that Delich is a fan of Duke, although there is clear and indisputable evidence that she repudiates him.
3. There is no evidence to support the assertion that the institution that is the UCU refuses to take action against viciousness against Jews and anti-racists on its own activist list. There MAY be evidence that UCU has failed to take action against viciousness towards supporters of the State of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
4.There is no evidence whatsoever that the UCU, as an institution endorses the exclusion of anti-racists or Jews because of their anti-racist ideology or their Jewish ethnicity. Any assertion otherwise is clearly defamatory.
5. There is no evidence to support the accusation that UCU is “circulating links to David Duke’s website on behalf of Delich”. There is evidence to suggest that Delich referenced an article from Duke’s website. There is a considerable difference between the one and the other.

So, as I said, a lot of it is made up shit. I am just beginning to realise that this site may not have been intended for open debate and honest representation. If it is a site that is avowedly Zionist, then all attempts to wring an apology to Jenna Delich for defaming her, intimidating her encouraging attacks on her are wasted. Might I point out, however, that you debase your own ideology even further by your repugnant behaviour?

at least be honest about your motives.

What are Mr. Rosen’s motives? He seems to be going above and beyond as far as playing “Devil’s advocate” goes. Can someone who’s more familiar with his writings enlighten me?

Diarmuid,

The facts are all over this site and the UCU list.

I am Brownie, and I approve this message. As we did with Delich, you can infer what you wish from this. Either way, you won’t be hearing from my solicitor.

a plug, my simply guide for UCU Activists and others - How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites.

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/for-ucu-activists-how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/

My final word on the matter…I foolishly attempted to engage you in a reasoned dialogue. You have consistently refused to support your claims with evidence; you have insulted me and treated me with disdain. None of which offends me personally, but all of which reflects on the true nature of your ideology.

I wonder if there are many fundamental differences between the characteristics of Duke’s ideology and the ideologies of some of the people here who have referred to my murderous Arab friends (?), told me to fuck off, suggested that I may be a nazi sympathiser and so on.

I am trying to excuse your behaviour by guessing that some of you are very young, drunk or from the United States. But you’ve done your cause a great disservice…then again, I don’t think you really care.

your ideology? do you think we are clones?

hardly, there is a fair spread of views here, granted Jew haters don’t get much look in, but that’s to be expected

I am trying to excuse your behaviour by guessing that some of you are very young, drunk or from the United States.

The “Arab” bit was over the top, yes. So how do you show that you’re above it? That’s right! You equate 300 million Americans with teenage drunks. You dummy.

your ideology? do you think we are clones? Well…but seriously,
and the ideologies of some of the people here

Jew-haters may not get much of a look in (although I notice that none have tried); however, if I was to interpret “Jew-hater” as meaning a Jew who hates, well, they have a fairly free hand round here, it would appear. And the targets are anybody who dares think differently to them.

By all means, delude yourself with the fantasy that dissent means anti-semitism. If you refuse to engage in any dialogue with those who think differently to you, your ideology will suffer as a result.

Diarmuid,

do you argue for a living? you’re rather good at it.

You equate 300 million Americans with teenage drunks.
Actually, I equate the arguments put forward by the youthfully naive, the drunkenly simplistic with the cultivated ignorance of some (but not all) citizens of the USA.

This is not the same as saying that all US citizens = teenage drunks.

It is the same as saying that
some US citizens are no more capable of rational discussion than a naive teenager.

It is also the same as saying that
some US citizens are no more capable of rational discussion than a simplistic drunk.

There is nothing in my original comment to limit the comparison to drunks of any age group. That is what the “or” makes clear. Which state are you from?

You dummy.

I can make a living out of this???

Why did you choose the US as opposed to, say, Thailand? or China?

I was born in California. How about you, Diarmuid? Where were you born?

Boogski
Hmmm…”I was born in California”…so, I was .right then, hahahahahaha. Who would have thought it. I was born in Dublin. It’s the capital of Ireland. Ireland has cars, buses and aeroplanes. Leprechauns are not real. Nobody says “top o’ the mornin’ to ye.”

Why did I choose the US? Because I guessed (rightly, I’m prepared to bet) that a lot of the people I have been arguing with are US citizens. I doubt that they are Thais or Chinese people. The US media is particularly adept at cultivating ignorance amongst the population, as far as I can gather. Thus, you have numbskulls like David All (who has to be a US citizen) who suggest that any accusations that the Israeli army murders women and children is a Big Nazi Lie that people just repeat and repeat with the sole intention that it will sink into the collective consciousness. Nobody repeats it because it is true and is repeatedly proven to be so, by the I”D”F. Nobody repeats it because they are morally opposed to State-sanctioned murder. We only repeat it because we are Big Nazi Anti-Jews. Presumably non-nazis thinks that the murder of newly-borns and old women by the Israeli army is fucking fantastic and saves valuable explosives from going to waste.

I notice that David All has gone very quiet since he was given some of the specifics that he said nobody ever gave. He may be young. He may be drunk. He may even be a citizen of the USA. What he clearly is is a reprehensible scumbag.

You are the other hand are quite endearing.

I am trying to excuse your behaviour by guessing that some of you are very young, drunk or from the United States.

says the big man, as he inadvertently outs himself as a hatemonger who denigrates drunks, young people and Americans qua Americans.

The US media is particularly adept at cultivating ignorance amongst the population, as far as I can gather.

Take responsibility for your own ignorance big man.

Ireland! I swear to God that was my first guess. :D

I said to myself, this guy sounds like one of those Irish loony tunes. Lo and behold I was right! If I had my way, the UK would kick you fuckers out of the Union. :D

Are you aware you have a huge base of support from people who think you have a total right to say what you want?

“Its a shame that nations can’t sue mailing lists for libel. These apologists and hypocrites in the UCU are some of the least self-aware creeps to have ever duped “polite” society.”

No it isn’t - or there would be even less free speech than we have now. Rather amazing to have such a comment under present circumstances.

Ibnaz
United States is not the same as America. Saying that the young can be naive does not make one a hate-monger. Saying that the drunken say things that make no sense does not make one a hate-monger. Saying that some of you are clearly from the USA does not make one a hate-monger.

Resorting to tired old racist cliches (like how stupid the Irish are) does make one a hate-monger.

Expecting to get a rise out of an Irishman by saying that you think Ireland should not be part of “the Union” is just stupid. If Ireland were part of “the Union”, I would also be of the opinion that “the UK” should “kick [us] fuckers out”.

As it is, six counties of Ireland remain within the United Kingdom. They constitute part of the UK. As such, they cannot kick themselves out of the UK. This is presumably the kind of comment to which one should retort, “Take responsibility for your own ignorance.”

Eowyn
This isn’t about free speech. Free speech envisages having the responsibility to weigh up the necessity to avoid unnecessary harm to others - clearly of very little import to contributors here. Nobody has the right to say whatever they want to say - do we really want people to have the right to call for murder? Do we really want to have people denying the Holocaust and winning the hearts and minds of more impressionable people? Do we really want to allow people to justify the words of the aggressors, to the detriment of the rights of their victims? Has a paedophile got an inalienable right to tell the mother of his victims about how much he enjoyed raping their child? Is that really how you see freedom of speech? Is it more sacrosanct than the right of society to protect itself from harm?

You are very shocking people!

Resorting to tired old racist cliches (like how stupid the Irish are) does make one a hate-monger.

Nobody said ALL the Irish are stupid. Why do you twist words? Are you a fucking liar? Why, yes! I think you are.

“I don’t have any murderous Arab friends that I am aware of. Perhaps you are resorting to racist stereotypes? Could that be it?”

Said the tosser who revealed his USA-hatred by posting stereotypes, then tried to wriggle his way out of it.

They are your friends by virtue of the fact that you are not screechingly anti-Syria, even though that really IS a murderous state. Or anti-China. Or anti-Iran.

As it is, six counties of Ireland remain within the United Kingdom. They constitute part of the UK. As such, they cannot kick themselves out of the UK.

Actually, they can. The GFA made this clear. With the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the Republic’s amendments of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, the constitutional status of NI effectively became a matter for the people of NI and no-one else. Neither the HMG nor the Republic lay any constitutional claim to the territory of NI.

So, yes, the people of NI can kick themselves out of the UK. You’re only from Dublin, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to know your arse from your elbow on a matter such as this.

This is presumably the kind of comment to which one should retort, “Take responsibility for your own ignorance.”

I bet you wish you’d never written that now.

The people of NI “cannot kick themselves out of the UK”. They can leave the UK, but to kick somebody out does not mean to leave. It means to expel. I think that the clear inference is that the Kicker Out remains within. Therefore it is logically impossible to kick oneself out of a group.

I bet you wish you’d never written that now.
How much do you want to bet? I take PayPal.

Nobody said ALL the Irish are stupid.
No, but somebody (i.e. you) said “this guy sounds like one of those Irish loony tunes.” That is resorting to a tired old racist cliche. My point still stands.

revealed his USA-hatred by posting stereotypes, then tried to wriggle his way out of it.
How I can reveal what is not real, is another logical conundrum that defeats my stupid Irish brain. I do not hate the USA. I have disdain towards wilfully ignorant people. But I don’t hate you. I barely even know you. Let’s sleep together, then I may well hate you.

This next part is to be read screechingly. I hate the government of Syria, China and Iran. All of them are murderous states - just like the State of Israel.

The people of NI “cannot kick themselves out of the UK”. They can leave the UK, but to kick somebody out does not mean to leave. It means to expel. I think that the clear inference is that the Kicker Out remains within. Therefore it is logically impossible to kick oneself out of a group.

So they can ‘expel’ themselves, effectively. Only a pedantic dullard would dispute this.

Diarmuid, after you’ve refreshed your memory of the GFA, go and look up “humility”.

No, but somebody (i.e. you) said “this guy sounds like one of those Irish loony tunes.” That is resorting to a tired old racist cliche. My point still stands.

No it doesn’t. Not anymore than your “tired old” shot at Americans does. See how I’ve exposed you for the hypocritical little turd we all know you are?

I barely even know you. Let’s sleep together, then I may well hate you.

Oh dear. Delusions of comedic talent. Is there anything more cringeworthy?

So they can ‘expel’ themselves, effectively. Only a pedantic dullard would dispute this.
I see. I hadn’t realised that we were adopting the Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics. I wonder if that applies to your definition of “humility”. Or perhaps your delusions of journalistic talent are not so cringeworthy.

Enough already. You are resolute in your steadfastedness and your hatred. Long may it rot your insides. I take my leave of you, safe in the knowledge that my existing opinions of such people as yourselves (oooh…dangerous!!!) are based on solid foundations.

The offer to sleep with you was heartfelt and sincere. Frankly I feel offended that you chose to interpret it as a joke.

Adieu, my hatred-filled zealots!

Yes, do come back when you have something resembling an argument, you little Irish bag o’ shit.

I see. I hadn’t realised that we were adopting the Humpty Dumpty approach to semantics.

Alternatively, you fucked up with your NI reference, was called on it, and now seek refuge in strict dictionary definitions. Embarrassed for you.

The offer to sleep with you was heartfelt and sincere. Frankly I feel offended that you chose to interpret it as a joke.

Verily, you make Jim Davidson look like Woody Allen….you know, the hook-nosed kyke from Brooklyn?

do you argue for a living? you’re rather good at it.

No he ain’t. Argument is good. Argument facilitates the exchange of ideas.

He’s just good at blazing rows.

“This next part is to be read screechingly. I hate the government of Syria, China and Iran. All of them are murderous states - just like the State of Israel”

You are a stupid antisemitic turd. Just like David Duke.