tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post7733487013551108495..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Tales from the TT Departure Lounge I: The "Umpire's Verdict"Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-60913216170419331022012-10-29T13:45:41.244+11:002012-10-29T13:45:41.244+11:00Another rather feeble comment from "Mark"...Another rather feeble comment from "Mark" (#47). Mark accuses me of using a reference to RF as a fiction writer as a "dog whistle" to imply that RF's comments on issues are incorrect (as I have clarified I certainly don't think RF lies; I just think he just doesn't get it.) Unfortunately there are so many factual errors in some Flanagan polemics that the dog does not need whistling.<br /><br />Mark writes:<br /><br />"I remember writing a response to Mr Barns at the time regarding “Death of a River Guide” where Mr Flanagan’s fiction included the true history of Tasmania from the early convict years to sealers and their treatment of Aboriginal women and the Franklin River campaign."<br /><br />So? Just because a novel (which I haven't read) contains aspects of broad historical truth doesn't mean everything in it is accurate - indeed by the nature of the form it is usually the opposite. And this is what I think of when I read many RF polemics - that I am reading loosely factoidal literature rather than high-quality objective political commentary.<br /><br />An example of the sorts of errors and premature declarations of fact that can be found in an RF polemic (in twenty minutes during a coffee break, even) is at #7 of http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/its-my-opinion/ Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17860952147524006912012-10-27T17:20:33.749+11:002012-10-27T17:20:33.749+11:00NB the Axiom comments rejected have been rejected ...NB the Axiom comments rejected have been rejected for being off-topic.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-3500722891639475272012-10-27T17:20:07.146+11:002012-10-27T17:20:07.146+11:00Peter Smith (#41)
"Will Dr Bonham be taking ...Peter Smith (#41)<br /><br />"Will Dr Bonham be taking comments on his blog and if so, I would be intrigued to see his moderating criteria."<br /><br />Now if you had actually bothered to examine the blog in question you would see that I have already accepted two comments from people other than me and already made a brief (albeit very informal) statement about moderation.<br /><br />I've also rejected almost every comment submitted by one Axiom, who is also the author of the "Reality Analyst" comment (#38) and is a conspiracy theorist who has a grudge against me over his banning from Chesschat.<br /><br />Given that Smith failed to do the basic research to partly answer his own question I doubt much effort has gone into the rest of his comment either!Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-74539662452240563782012-10-26T12:00:03.727+11:002012-10-26T12:00:03.727+11:00Merk (#33):
"For a man who presents his view...Merk (#33):<br /><br />"For a man who presents his views as being above all objective and dispassionate, he seems remarkably interested in eavesdropping on what other people say about him."<br /><br />Now this is what we know in the business as a great big greasy <i>non sequitur</i>. Whether or not a person prides themselves on being objective and dispassionate has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they read what is said about them. And heck, I only said I was quitting TT as a writer and regular commenter, not that I was going to stop reading or discussing it! <br /><br />That said I can already tell that this site is not going to be my TT-away-from-TT; I won't be continually cluttering it with responses to every post I would have jumped on while I was there, just as I didn't seek to clutter TT with constant analysis of every disagreeable post on other forums I don't post on. Having left I am obviously not going to post responses to that thread but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in reading and at times commenting on what people have to say. When you're on an ego wave "as big as Texas" you gotta surf it! <br /><br />The premise of Merk's comment is an oversimplification anyway. Indeed, it's my passion for certain kinds of "objectivity" that have brought me to this point. I'm rather glad that it has done so. <br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-89964325978156106782012-10-26T03:12:18.485+11:002012-10-26T03:12:18.485+11:00Poor, poor effort Stephen Jeffrey (#28):
"Co...Poor, poor effort Stephen Jeffrey (#28):<br /><br />"Contrarians Greg Barns and Kevin Bonham have both now walked away from Tasmanian Times. Perish the thought that the magnificent edifice that is logic should have its limits set by that most base of human attributes - the Achilles’ heel of ego."<br /><br /><b>Logic</b> requires a person to remain on Tasmanian Times and have John Hayward make Nazi references in their direction? The limits of <b>logic</b> are whether or not a person stays on a patchily moderated website awash with deep green diatribes and 100+ versions of more or less the same thread about foxes? Sorry Stephen but you've gotta do much, much better than that if you want a place in the About Me section.<br /><br />I've filed a defo and C of C complaint against #27 by Michael Chellis (who I bet <i>will</i> be coming here just to look for his name) ; I also did so against what was #1. Those have been the only posts I've objected to so far.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-73654528641322524122012-10-25T10:46:34.889+11:002012-10-25T10:46:34.889+11:00Big comprehension fail by poster mate (#24) who de...Big comprehension fail by poster mate (#24) who describes me as a Libertarian although my article stating my reasons for leaving explicitly and correctly stated that I'm not. <br /><br />Also there was this:<br /><br />"Theatrically flouncing out won’t impress anyone, especially when you proceed to moderate and edit the bejeezus out of comments on your own blog."<br /><br />This is not about the right to moderate and nor is it about free speech.<br /><br />It is about a site providing a level playing field so that people with differing views in the issues being canvassed on that site can compete on an equal setting (unless they have misbehaved and hence incurred banning, for example). That is an issue which is independent of the level of moderation on a blog. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-57998033872010625762012-10-24T20:12:53.765+11:002012-10-24T20:12:53.765+11:00Sadly the quality of the TT thread has declined in...Sadly the quality of the TT thread has declined in the last few posts (now at #17). An example - Bronwyn Williams in #17 writes:<br /><br />"I recently submitted an article to TT, and was happy to revise it in order to comply with the site’s legal requirements, even though I am a qualified legal practitioner, and I considered some of the amendments unnecessary."<br /><br />Now I was happy to revise my comment in light with the site's legal requirements if needed. I wouldn't have been happy to revise my comment in light with the site's subjective "tone" requirements, for the reasons stated in my long post on TT, but I probably would have done it.<br /><br />No, the point that Bronwyn is missing is that I wanted to make a particular legitimate point and I was not allowed to make it, whatever my tone, whatever unnecessary legal changes I accepted, on that thread. Trying to make herself sound morally superior by saying she sucked something up and so should I just doesn't work when the circumstances are so blatantly different. And inserting yourself into the story when you don't belong there because your situation is small fry by comparison is, well, your words Bronwyn ...Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com