The joys of blogging
One of the joys of being a (somewhat) well known blogger is that when certain stories come up, you can be accused of saying what you didn’t say about it, or not saying anything at all – at the same time! There are people out there waiting for me to write about everything, and if I don’t – see, we knew he was like that!
Joy!
Meanwhile, Jewish rabbi blames gays for Haiti disaster. [link fixed]
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Blog, Humour
Nutjob … the Rabbi that is
You’ve missed the HTt element in the link on Haiti
whoops, cheers!
“you can be accused of saying what you didn’t say about it,”
Hmmmmm let’s see now. Here is what I wrote: “Of course, there were many who accepted his claims of unfair treatment. Some, like Sunny Hundal on his Pickled Politics website, also said that he was subject of a smear campaign, although it looks likely now that many of the things he was accused of doing were likely true.”
Now let’s look at what my source for stating that was, which was a comment here where you said: “And that doesn’t even take into account the long-running smear campaign against Dizaei, which has started again thanks to the Mail.”
Are you saying that my summary, albeit I didn’t use the word “long-running” was not accurate or fair? I can remove the word “also” if you like?
although it looks likely now that many of the things he was accused of doing were likely true.
Really?
The point about the smear campaign is obvious – they had to pay out money for that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/24/daily-mail-evening-standard-dizaei
Here is what they accused him of:
Which of that is true? In fact, other than getting him for beating up that guy and then concocting the story – what else was there?
You don’t even know the full extent of the stuff he was accused of. You’re just writing crap based on prejudice than facts.
Sunny, above, you said, when linking to my site that you have been “accused of saying what you didn’t say”. The thing is you said he was subject of a smear campaign and I said you said he was subject of smear campaign. That is true isn’t it?
I’m really struggling here to understand what it is I accused you of saying that you didn’t say – can you point the exact words out to me? I’m also slightly confused by the bit you’ve just quoted as well because it’s obviously not about you, or saying you said something that you didn’t actually say.
I mean, fair enough, you might not agree with it, but it’s surely irrelevant to the point at hand in that you accused me of accusing you of saying something that didn’t say which in fact you did say.
Also, and sorry about this, but I’m also struggling a little bit to understand both the vague insinuations made on my blog when you referred to “brown people” and the comment above about prejudice. Can you clarify for me what you’re actually driving at?
I’m really struggling here to understand what it is I accused you of saying that you didn’t say
playing the race card – which is the header of your post and the implication when you include me in it.
Well at least we’re getting somewhere now. So what you’re saying is that I accused you of saying something by not explicitly saying it, but rather I did so because you drew an inference that I was saying it convertly based on your own starting assumptions about me and my motivation.
Well I apologise for the fact that you’ve drawn that conclusion Sunny, but it’s just not correct.
I was talking about Dizaei playing the race card, not you, something which I think is obvious in the final two paragraphs of the post. The only reason you got a mention, along with an unamed “many”, was as background to illustrate that Dizaei had managed to exploit his status as a victim.
If anything, the inference you ought to be drawing is that I was saying people had been dealt the race card by Dizaei. The whole point of my post was to ask how we deal with the deceitful use of identity, and the only person who I was saying deceitfully played that card was Dizaei.
I don’t expect you’ll beleive me anyway, but when I look at you Sunny I don’t see, as you put it, a “brown person”. I simply see a commentator with ideas that I find philosophically problematic.
P.S. Why did you get rid of this nifty comment edit feature on Lib Con but keep it here? It’s very useful for someone like me that makes so many typos.