Monday, November 28, 2005

Putting truth's boots on, quickly

Since my remarks yesterday about a false allegation made about me, three people, two of whom I respect and the other of whom I have no opinion, have suggested, in their various ways, that my remarks were perhaps a bit "over the top". Maybe you do too, dear reader.

They might be right, but a small point of order, Your Honour. There was a reason for my doing so: the person who libelled me, solely for the sake of winning over readers to his case in a debate, published a false allegation against me. So what? The point is that it was imputed of me that I have a "connection" to two organisations. So what? The point is, Your Honour that those two organisations have been alleged to have committed terrorist and other crimes. In fact, it might be that the organisations are illegal in some countries. I don't know enough about them to know.

I didn't want the record to go uncorrected. I had to make it perfectly clear that I have never had the slightest association with them -- because if I did not, the lie would remain on the Internet and might be used in the future to my detriment, or that of my family. As the proverb says, "a lie gets around the world before truth gets its boots on".

I have no desire to find myself at some airport in 20 years time and have some jumped up ticket officer place me under arrest just because some lowlife in Australia made false charges against me. I ask the skeptical reader to put themselves in my shoes, if someone published an imputation that you were "connected" to the Mafia or Al Qaeda. Because of the Hilton bombing, in the minds of many Australians, and Indians, etc, that is how bad the allegation against me sounds to many people. And there are people in the world (like my libeller) who are dull enough believe that if you write a piece of investigative journalism about The Mob, you must be part of The Mob. The slander against me is very serious in Australia.

I place a reasonable value on my reputation, too, and I had to write quickly a firm denial of the slanderer's baseless and totally false charge. Over the top? Perhaps. But that's why I did it, and I believe I did the only thing available to me, short of sueing the man for defamation (which would be so boring).

The moderator of the forum removed the libel, and my detailed refutation. This is regrettable, but out of my control and was possibly done to protect the forum from prosecution (which was not my intention), rather than for my sake. At time of writing, the contemptible person who attacked me in such a cowardly way has not responded. Enuff said. Thank you, 'oldbanger', who came to my defence in the forum when I was feeling quite deserted.

Update, Nov 29: I have received a generous retraction and apology, with thanks.


Blogger BOAZ said...

yes.. shock horror.. here "I" am...that monster from OLO, that beast of intolerable burden who has nothing better to do in his life than seek out vulnerable OLO posters of differing opinion and 'crucify' them verbally ?

Firstly, given the wisdom of some friends of Almanac who counselled restraint, I feel I should attempt to heal this wound.

I certainly had NO intention of causing the 'panic' expressed by Pip, nor the offence. I noted from his web site that he included several articles on political activism, and this suggested to me a 'connection'.

If I may humbly present something from Pips own words:

Authors note"
"Although I know Tim Anderson a little, have always been very fond of him, and was a minor but dedicated activist in the campaign to free him after his second imprisonment"

Now, I cannot speak with authority on whether Tim was a member of Ananda Marga at the time Pip made this statement, but he was at one time, and in the context of the article on the Hilton, it was prominent.
I therefore find the conclusion that to march in protest for Andersons freedom, an admission that you know him and are fond of him, and his association with the Ananda Marga, that this constitutes a 'connection' of sorts.

I did not place ANY value judgement on the 'nature' or worth of the connection, and I also said it was 'apparent' which it was to me.

The savagery of Pips email back to me was astounding. I won't repeat it here, without his permission.

I was not "cowardly", my 'insulting' email actually invited him BACK to continue interacting.

Here is the beginning of my email

Dear Pip
I noted your 'parting' comments from OLO, though I rather hope you will continue to interact with us there, even though you find many of our views disagreeable. (just as we find yours so).
OLO is valuable as a forum where people of such diverse opinions can meet and exchange views.

I found your reasoning somewhat lacking for a man who purports to have an Arts degree.

...and, I still do, find his reasoning dodgy, and given time, and sufficient interaction, I believe I can show this clearly.

Cheers all

7:56 PM  
Blogger Pip said...

I met Mr Anderson after he had left that organisation and I am proud to have campaigned for a man who was shown to be innocent in a notorious, terrible frame-up. You chose to try to connect me with a much-reviled organisation and did so after I had told the forum that I was not returning. That was cowardly and contemptible. Your protestation that you are trying to heal a wound is a charde; if you had wanted to heal any wound you would have retracted your allegations in the forum and apologised to me there. Your email to me was insulting. In order to debate with me you have continually used ad hominem arguments and personal denigration. You have had your say, BOAZ_David. I have had mine. I will not get into a slanging match with you. I find what you did to be totally unacceptable in many ways.

8:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker