 |
| Yes, he is! You can tell just by looking |
An interesting development to my recent post about discrimination is a comment from someone called IAN ELLERY, who is apparently the chairman of a certain club for cartoonists. I think I've heard of it, but I've certainly never heard of Ian Ellery. You've read the comments I left on TONY ISABELLA's blog - polite, civil, mild-mannered, non-offensively stated (unless you're the kind of person who'd take offence at the list of ingredients on a tin of soup) - certainly not what you'd call a "rant". Let's look at Mr Ellery's comment on that other blog, shall we?
"He is a well known Troll. You are better off ignoring him and not giving him a forum for his deliberately provocative rants."
So, completely impartial and fair-minded then.
I'm not sure why someone I've never heard of and with whom I've had no previous dealings, would seek to malign my name for no justifiable reason in a public forum, but it's a shame he should violate what I'd hope is the ethos of his club by bad-mouthing me for merely expressing an opinion. By not contributing anything meaningful to the topic on that other blog and resorting to malicious comments about the character of someone completely unknown to him (me), he surely epitomises the definition of the very word with which he attempts to sully my name.
Now perhaps you understand why I so robustly defend myself when other detractors do the same as him. The reason is simple - lies spread quickly when not cut off at the root.
Shame on you, sir! Shame on you!
(Update:) Never one to take things lying down, I sent Mr. Ellery the following email:
"I take exceptiom to you describing me as a well-known troll on Tony Isabella's blog. I may be well-known (debatable), but expressing an opinion that you or anyone else may disagree with does not qualify me as a troll. Be assured that I will be exploring my legal options to make you accountable for publicly maligning me."
Mr. Ellery didn't reply, but later left this comment on Mr. Isabella's blog:
"And now he's trolling me by email and on his own blog."
Now, I'm not quite sure how sending a civilly-worded email to someone who has publicly defamed me equates with trolling, but Mr. Ellery clearly isn't interested in accuracy or the truth. However, now I'm trolling on my own blog? Doesn't seem to be connected to reality either. Some people, eh?
Now, should he remove his 'trollish' comments from Tony Isabella's blog, I'll consider removing this post about him.
20 comments:
It would seem, Kid, that a lot of people don't want to hear to point out to them that there may be a different side to any given issue. I think you see things that a lot of people miss, but often when you point it out, people seem to take offence with you personally.
I don't think you will ever get people to even listen to your outspoken views without them losing their tempers.
But, there is a well-known saying:-
"Lose your temper - lose the arguement !"
Yeah, 'don't shoot the messenger', is what I say. I always try to at least understand what both sides are before sharing my wit and wisdom with everyone. (He said, modestly.)
I looked on Tony Isabella's blog and it seems (apologies if I'm wrong) that all your comments and Mr Ellery's ) have been taken off, not really the way to deal with this Tony and I agree with your overall viewpoint.
Mr Ellery's comments ( I cant see them so have to say "based on your post") are just errr silly.
Seems like people are trying to silence you, how did this start, you said folk shouldn't be forced into actions that violate their personal convictions, wasn't it? Seems perfectly reasonable to me, although those convictions might be the subject of contention, I'm kinda disappointed that some -seem- to be allowing their view on that subject to taint the principle in question. which is after all one of personal liberty. I say -seem- because I'm not convinced anyone can be so inured to irony that they can be that inconsistent, unless they are acting deliberately. Such deliberate advocacy isn't intrinsically bad, but couching such motives with liberal rhetoric is hypocritical and I'm really not big on hypocrites, we've got way to many of 'em.
Just checked, McScotty, they're still there. Yes, silly comments - that's what can happen when the 'old boys network' gets together. Still, it's all material for the blog, with which I entertain and enthrall all my discerning members. (I trust.)
That's strange I still cant see them I must be looking at a the wrong blog ("Indiana wants me" with 10 comments?) but apologies for that I must be looking at the wrong thread.
McScotty, it's 'Walking the Walk' with 14 comments a post or two underneath.
******
Sorry, DSE. your comment was lying in wait while I was answering others on the previous post, so my response is slightly out of sequence. I think the basic problem is that some people just aren't prepared to consider the possibility that there may be merit in the other side's point of view. They don't really care about liberty, only THEIR liberty and that of those they support or endorse. The old story, I'm afraid. Some people with a chip on their shoulders posturing as caring individuals when they only really care about themselves and theirs. (And that applies to parties on both sides.)
I looked at Tony Isabella's blog too and initially I made the same mistake as Paul - the comments are in the previous post,Paul, if you haven't seen them yet. I'd never call you a troll, Kid, and your blog is all the more interesting for the fact that you speak your mind but on this I'm in agreement with Mr. Isabella. America's religious Right are an appalling bunch and must be opposed - they ignore whichever parts of the Bible don't agree with their own political agenda. I'm so glad we don't have anything like that here.
That is basically what I was trying to say on the previous post. All that was needed was acknowledgement that there is a valid point to both sides. Kid, you weren't trying to get Tony to switch sides for his support. So there was no need for bigotry accusations. Or losing tempers.
Kid, I don't always agree with everything you say, but if you are saying it in a civil manner, I will support your right to have your say. Similarly, I support anyone having their say in a civil manner. But I wish everyone would just agree that there are two different points of view, without getting nasty.
And it seems that Mr. Isabella (and the side he's aligned with) ignores whichever opinions don't agree with his own political agenda, CJ. So what's the difference? In politics, both - all - sides ignore what they don't like. And, sadly, we probably DO have something like that here - and not just of the 'Christian' variety. However, thanks for saying that you don't think I'm a troll. (I did try to join their ranks, but they wouldn't have me. Seems they've got standards.)
******
A forlorn hope, alas, JP, when two or three people are more interested in using such instances to have a go at me, rather than address the issue under discussion. Talk about 'obsessive grudges', eh?
Consider Mr. Ellery's comments on Mr. Isabella's blog - contributes nothing to the the topic, merely bad-mouths me. And yet I'm the one who gets called a troll.
No, you're definitely not a troll! I've seen trolling at it ain't what YOU do. Neither is it your style.
I don't think we'll ever find out, who they are, but they can pop up unexpedadly any time. I suspect they have nothing better to do than read every word, patiently waiting for a moment to pounce on their chosen victim!
I think it's safe to assume that emails have been flying around, JP, as a few disgruntled losers take the opportunity to settle old scores by putting the boot in. The more people they can convince that I'm the bad guy, the more they feel vindicated as regards their own behaviour.
Cheers Colin /Kid I had actually read them up until last night and Mr Ellery's comments but then forgot where I saw it.
I don't see you as a troll either but I'm not sure you should have mentioned that you think there is a link to an (non aggressive but albeit silly) anonymous email and Lew (Stringer) based on Lew joining Tony's blog (more likely the subject has been discussed on other sites and Lew simply read and joined Tonys site as a Marvel fan from that era) but you just know this is just going to stoke the fire and turn out into another long protracted issue with accusations and counter accusations over what is really a non story where I feel you were well within your rights to be miffed at end up as a bigot / troll issue which it certainly (imho) is not - Batten down the hatches Kid!
Well, Mr. Isabella's blog has been around for a long time, McScotty, so wotsisname could've joined it long before now. Going from his recent comment on his own blog, it seems likely that Mr. Isabella has been fed 'background information' on me, and a certain ugly, smirking mug popping up seem more than a coincidence.
Besides, you'll note that I said 'may have been' in the comment you refer to, which is even better than 'allegedly' when it comes to hedging one's bets.
I think Mr. Ellery's involvement (Cartoonist's Club of Great Britain?) strongly suggests collusion by certain parties. I can join the dots.
Kid, surely the big difference between Tony Isabella and religious fundamentalists is that the latter can claim moral superiority from an ancient book which gives them a literally god-given right to discriminate. We had the same here with the debate over women priests - Christian fundamentalists said it was wrong to have women priests because in the Bible Jesus only had male disciples. Jesus was also circumcised and spoke Hebrew but the fundamentalists don't insist on that too before you can be a C of E priest, another example of blatant hypocrisy. Religion is totally exempt from the sex discrimination laws but why should it be ? Why should somebody's religion mean they can discriminate against others (whether it's women, gay people, Jews or whoever) just because an ancient "holy" book says they can ? This question needs to be asked.
CJ, I really believe that you're missing the point of what I've been saying to a large degree - and you clearly have something against Christian fundamentalism. Now, of course you're entitled to dislike any group you choose, but if Tony Isabella was a Christian fundamentalist, he'd be calling you bigoted right about now. Don't you get it yet? It doesn't matter what it is that prompts someone's beliefs or prejudices - whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Daily Express, the way you were brought up, a political party - whatever. What matters is, as long as it's legal, you should be allowed to live your life as you choose without having someone else's beliefs - whether they're beliefs determined by religion or by culture, or by personal choice - imposed on you by someone else. So, if you're not a Christian, you shouldn't be required by law to believe in or acknowledge Jesus; if you're not a Muslim, you shouldn't be required by law to honour and acknowledge Mohammed, if you're not a homosexual, you shouldn't be required by law to believe or accept that what Stephen Fry or Alan Carr says about being gay is necessarily so.
That means that I shouldn't have to go to church or not eat certain meats because YOU believe in God; it means that I shouldn't have to conduct a gay marriage ceremony (if I'm a minister or celebrant who doesn't want to do it) just because YOU want me to conduct your wedding to McScotty. (Sorry lads, just plucking names out of the hat.)
As I keep saying, whether someone's beliefs stem from a religious or secular viewpoint is really neither here nor there. Now, paradoxically, there are contradictions to this in society - alway have been. In a democracy, what the majority wants is what goes. So if the majority believe that shops shouldn't be open on a Sunday (as was once the case), then that's what the rest of us have to accept, like it or not. The way society works is a strange mixture of contradictions, and basically that's because it's impossible to keep everyone happy when people have disparate likes, dislikes, preferences, prejudices, whatever. It's an impossible balancing act.
Also, sorry to be blunt, CJ, but your point about speaking Hebrew or being circumcised is nonsense - for reasons previously stated. There's nothing in either the Old or New Testaments that say it's a matter of religious principle that Christians speak Hebrew or be circumcised. In the Old Testament, circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and the Jews, and was never a requirement of the Christian religion. So if you were a Jewish Christian, you'd be circumcised (because it's done in infancy), but if you were a Gentile Christian, you were never required to be (unless it was part of your culture).
Continued...
As I've said before, one needs to be able to distinguish between cultural and historical practices of the time, and religious principles that were intended to be forever. So 'loving God and your neighbour' is a timeless, universal requirement of the Christian religion, but dressing a certain way, talking a certain language, or observing specific historical customs that pertain to geographical location or cultural practices aren't. And people who make that distinction aren't necessarily being hypocritical, but exercising judgement between what is and isn't an irrevocable requirement of their religion. It's called using one's discretion based upon certain criteria, CJ, and it's entirely legitimate to do so. However, having said that, there's always disagreement as to what should fall where, because we're only fallible human beings.
Here's another question that needs to be asked (I've already asked it, in fact) - why should somebody's religion/secular opinion/outlook/background or whatever, mean that they can descrimate either for or against others (whether it's women, men, adults, children, gay or straight people, Jews, Gentiles, Martians or whoever) just because an ancient 'holy' book/instruction manual/set of rules and regulations/make it up as we go along approach/personal preferences - or any set of criteria you care to name - says they can? The question's been asked a million times down through the ages, CJ, and we're still trying to work out the bloody answer. And we're trying to work it out on this blog a damn sight more openly than on Tony Isabella's.
As I said in a response on the previous post, I find it ironic (to say the least) that people who complain about other people's 'religious freedom' impacting on their 'rights' seem to forget one thing. The foundation and authority for those 'unalienable rights' was the belief that they were 'endowed by their Creator', so the constitution was based on a belief in God and a desire for 'religious freedom'. Seems a bit strange to be citing the very thing they're protesting against as the reason for doing so.
Kid, I agree that we can have a sensible discussion on this blog without calling anybody a troll and I appreciate it. I only have "something against" religious fundamentalism (not just Christian !!) because of the way it's protected by law and its' adherents can smugly claim a moral superiority - "I'm opposed to homosexuals because the Bible says so and that's that, end of story". A member of a political party or a Daily Mail reader can have a very strong opinion on something but it's accepted as just an opinion and is open to challenge unlike a religious belief which is apparently untouchable. The Bible is very contradictory and says different things - "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it's turn the other cheek and love your enemy (and when did the Christian church ever love its' enemies - they slaughtered them all). Wherever you are on the political spectrum you can find a biblical verse, parable, proverb or psalm to suit your point of view. Even the African slave trade was justified by the Bible. That's what annoys me about Christian fundamentalists - they cherry-pick which bits suit their right-wing agenda and insist they must be respected because of their faith. And "endowed by the Creator" is just a meaningless phrase - in 1990 I had to do jury service and I was sworn in by placing my hand on the Bible and swearing "by God" to do my duty as a juror. I had no intention of making a fuss and objecting but I didn't believe in God and none of us were asked whether we believed in God because the court authorities knew it was just a pointless throwback to more religious times that nobody had ever bothered to change.
CJ, laws get changed all the time, so nothing is immutable. And if someone wants to believe the Bible, so what? Let 'em. In what way is your life affected by someone believing the Bible in this day and age? In what practical way does that impact on your life? Regardless the source of someone's belief, they're going to believe it and claim some kind of moral authority for it - whether it's the Bible, the law, it's the way I was brought up, it's the right/decent/only thing to do, common sense dictates, etc. It's for that very reason that you're incorrect about opinion being accepted as mere opinion. People regard their opinion as sacrosanct. And everything's open to challenge - religion, opinion, attitude, blah, blah, blah.
The Bible's very contradictory? So is public opinion, political dogma, scientific theory - EVERYTHING. In your case, if you don't mind me saying, it seems that the Bible appears contradictory because you don't know how to read it in context. Already told you, CJ - the OT is a very different collection of writings for a different audience at a very different time in comparison to the NT. The 'eye for an eye' system of law was for a different time, but even then, there's no real contradiction. Now you need to try and wrap your mind around this. 'Love your neighbour' is about PERSONAL attitude and conduct - doing them no wrong in other words. However, if your neighbour murders your wife and the law of the land demands the death penalty, then you 'loving your neighbour' does not exclude him from having to pay that penalty. So YOU may forgive your neighbour for murdering your wife, but the LAW can still administer punishment for his crime. I repeat - no real contradiction.
Anyone who is determined enough, or unscrupulous enough, or deluded enough, can interpret anything to suit their point of view - whether it's the Bible, the Koran, the Law, an MFI instruction leaflet - ANYTHING.
Again, CJ - EVERYONE cherry-picks EVERYTHING to suit their point of view. YOU'RE dong it now. Picking bits out of different books of the Bible, written over thousands of years for different audiences in different times - yet you're interpreting verses written thousands of years apart as if they're meant to be in force at the same time.
I can't say any more on on this subject, CJ - I've said it all already more than once. If you can't see it, you can't see it, but if we keep going around in circles, someone is bound to accuse us both of trying to change the others' mind, which isn't something that either of us wants, I hope.
As for jury service, there's an alternative, non-religious oath you can take you know. Someone might say that you were being a hypocrite for swearing an oath that you didn't believe in. (Hee hee.) As for 'meaningless phrase', it wasn't at the time it was written, so it seems pointless, hypocritical even, to appeal to something as an authority for the protection of your 'unalienable rights', when you don't believe in the foundation it was built on. When it comes to rights, CJ, we only get what others are prepared to give us if it suits them to do so. That's the way society, democracy and so-called freedom works. Your life is in their hands and it's a game of swings and roundabouts.
Oops! That should be 'discriminate', not 'descriminate' in one of my above responses.
Post a Comment