Rifty
Of course not, that's why I thought it wise to draw attention to his lies, plagiarism and deliberate misrepresentation.
Many people might miss it, and think his one good point was original, rather than stolen from text he snipped and then disgracefully and deliberately misrepresented.
He persists in it in; but as you will note, the more he pressed to explain himself, the more evasive he becomes, now he not only fails to provide verbatim quotes and proper citations to his lies, but he is even ambiguous about who he's accusing!! B^p
The essence of a systemic campaign of distortions and falsehoods, which is what racists are running in Usenet, is that it must be vague, and enable sufficient deliberate confusion to make it's internal contradictions difficult to pin down.
That's why I provide citations, and demand them before I will accept ANY buttertion about others from proven liars.
Thus I was surprised that anyone with academic training, even without having read my post, would accept this sort of crude falsification without challenging for the source to be disclosed;
Australia have come from different cultures, and live different lives that could be categorised into groups if you chose to do so."
I am not trying to impose impossible standards on you, perhaps merely using your warm endorsement of the sly manipulators garbage, to highlight their modus operandi. ;-)
I am not challenging YOUR integrity, but highlighting his lack of it. Apologies if you think I gave another impression.
Only when I'm snake hunting. ;-)
As Noel Pearson once said of Hanson, he was grateful for One Nation - "now all the snakes in the long grbutt have put their heads, and we can see them" ;-)
Of course not. But I have a responsibility to draw it to people's attention, with an understandable measure of ire.
It is entirely up to others as to how they respond to the facts put before them.
And exposing intellectual frauds and liars is sweet.
It's a win-win situation, I demonstrate that his best ideas are in fact mine, and that all the idiocy is his own! B^)
I have. He lacks the basic honesty to even attempt to explain himself. No surprises there.
It just happened that your post thanked him for the part of his thesis that wasn't nonsense, and as it was my work you praised, I thought it best to advise you directly, especially as, like all of us, you don't have time to read everything else, where I eviscerate him at length.
Naturally, but now you have information showing both of his faces.
How you use it is up to you.
I was aware of his behaviour, and exposed it as a public duty.
Perhaps I have just been dealing with the tactics and stratagems of Usenet racists longer, and can smell them coming. ;-)
But it doesn't take long to suss them out, they are predictable and not too bright.
I may have mispoke there, I buttumed you buttessed Masters theses, not advised people writing them.
I still use and insist on the basics; provide a citation for your sources, giving people the oipportunity to validate them, insist others do so, ESPECIALLY when they are traducing someone (even if it isn't oneself!)
When I find an unknown quanbreasty paraphrasing another poster, I tend to treat what they have to say with utmost suspicion unless they quote verbatim and provide attributions, at least till I find them repeatedly misrepresenting, then I buttume they are either too stupid to be trusted, or too dishonest to be believed.
When trust exists, naturally the formal rules are relaxed.
You may find me, on second and third encounters, simply referring to previously well documented proofs, because those posts, where some liar is nailed conclusively, are often necessarily long, and people as busy as yourself may not have read them, as apparently was the case with my post preceding Headjob's which he used as the unattributed source of his only correct point.
All that aside, I enjoy your work, you haven't been around so long that cynicism and impatience with their stupidity causes you to blaze away and sometimes cause friendly fire incidents. ;-)
God's Speed! (not necessarily fast)
--
"There is a fundamental distinction between multicultural and Multiculturalism, which racists constantly and deliberately confuse.
A society is multicultural if it has more than one culture being practised within that society.
'Multicultural - A society which embraces a number of minority cultures' - Macquarie Dictionary
Multiculturalism is two things, the -ISM indicates that it is a set of beliefs or ideas about multiculture, ie a recognition of multicultural REALITY, an acceptance of it, a celebration of it. But it is ALSO a set of government policies to formalize that recognition, acceptance and celebration! Thus the Howard government has a Department which documents the positive economic social and foreign policy benefits from having a successful, open, democratic multicultural society."
- fasgnadh
Australia have come from different cultures, and live different lives that could be categorised into groups if you chose to do so.
a governmental level"
- Rev. Headjob, liar and thief demonstrating the deliberate confusion.
------------
"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
The Official Est. June 2000 aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
The true-blue Homestead;
The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
The Tuckerbox;
-----------
