NOW fuck off?

isn’t that clear enough for you?

now fuck off, I am not in the mood for fascist scum

The Hp shadow blog suggests they will be back by the weekend.

Now Delich and the UCU need to pay somehow. I will be whispering appropriately vindictive and vicious poison in the ears of fellow party members re these judenhass filth in the “union”.

I doubt if she penned the headline, but I wonder how Delich thinks about her peice being published under the heading “UCU & Zionist Mafia Exposed”.

Maybe if she doesn’t agree with it, she will sue the ISP owner of THAT blog for misrepresentation of her perspectives?

Or then again, maybe not.

If she’s reading this, maybe she will have the bottle to reply.

That photo, btw, came from the BBC website – an election programme from 2001. Delich is hiding behind ignorance, and on the UCU list it has been suggested that she is new to the UK – clearly not, from the BBC recording. She was from Bosnia. I think it would be useful to know more about this person – what are her affiliations. No evidence from her job or from that broadcast that she is any way on the Left (Enterprise Week, anyone?).

There is also a quite incredible posting from JD to a site which complains about Thompsons, the solicitors who used to act for UCU members. Google her name, and it will come up – have a look at the heading.

Disgusting.

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/uk-liberal-hawk-blog-taken-down-after-legal-threat-to-webhost/

I, for obvious reasons, cannot check the ins and outs of why Ben, who tends to call everyone a female pudenda, did so with Roger, but to claim it was open season on him suggests either you didn’t read the support which came from him from all quarters, both personally and out of propriety, or that you’re from the UCU e-mail list. Just as to suggest he made some remarks “about Israel’s history which some people have disliked” suggests either you didn’t read them and the ‘negative’ responses or you’re being deliberately disengenuous. As a

It’s a blog. People tend to get hot under the coller and shout on blogs. It can happen on any subject, so it would be exceptional if HP was immune to it. Consider this – as well as the periodic closing of out-of-control threads (such as an anti-Muslim hate-fest this week) or deletion of offensive posts – against your sense of utter disconnect at calling someone who endorses views found on David Duke’s personal site and forcing the closure of sites which reveal this.

Perfect definiton of a bystander.

In my view, the blogs concerning Jenna Dilich reflect worse on the general nature of debate on Harry’s place than they do on her.

In the post “UCU and the David Duke fan”, the poster “Roger” comes in from a lot of criticism. He is called a “cunt” by Ben, and an “antisemitic prick” by Nearly Oxfordian, who also implies that Roger believes that Jewish lives are worth less than others. Yet as far as I can make out, Roger said nothing antisemitic or deliberately misleading in any of his posts; and Tim Allon and Fabian would seem to agree, since Tim explicitly asked Fabian to give a judgement on the matter.

Certainly, Roger has made some statements about Israel’s history which some people have disliked, but that is not the same thing as saying something antisemitic. Yet accusations of the most serious kind have been made against him. (Was it not fortunate that Roger did not provide his full name or any personal details?)

Though Tim Allon asked Nearly Oxfordian to apologise, Fabian says “I like nearly Oxfordian. He is sick of the level of implicit and explicit antisemitism in GB, and has no patience to deal with it calmly”. But in this case the antisemitism was neither implicit nor explicit but simply non-existent.

And Fabian says of Roger’s case “when you make paternalistic and arrogant remakes about Jewish cultural and political creations, you shouldn’t be surprised if you get by return an accusation of antisemitism”. So it seems that a factually true statement made by a non-antisemite is still liable to be described as antisemitic merely because someone dislikes it, or suspects that it implies something, or finds it paternalistic or arrogant. In short, there seems to be almost no limit for the use of the term “antisemitic”.

By contrast, the most extraordinarily insulting remarks concerning other groups pass without comment on Harry’s Place. It seems as if it open season on the site in regard to all nations, religions, and parties, with the important proviso that the nation, religion, and party must not be Jewish.

It is sometimes said that the history and current situation of the Jewish people is so different from that of other peoples that they must be seen, to some degree, as a special case. And this is a perfectly reasonable point to make. But you cannot then go around the various threads speaking, to take just a few cases, of ‘Jocks’ (Scots), Mohammed’s “epileptic drivelling” and people being “cunts”, this last a term seemingly in vogue on Harry’s.

For are we to suppose that the tough guys on the site strut about hurling insults and then suddenly faint when mention is made of Israeli actions in 1948? Hardly. The whole business seems to substantiate the claim that the term “antisemitism” is used to stifle debate, as there seems to be no other explanation. What would you say if you encountered someone who slandered all other groups, but pleaded racism when his own side was criticised?

Incidentally, in the same blog, referring to English history, you (Modernity) say “it is a very, very long list of English crimes”. This remark is far more critical of the English than Roger’s were of the Israelis, but when you sent it, did you fear that you might be charged with racism of the worst kind? Or accused of valuing some lives more than others? Or that your name would be blackened? Perhaps you could explain to Roger what de facto free speech feels like.

Will you be the main source of information as the tale develops? Please advise.

Finally, little Willy at the Drink Soaked hand Shandyists thinks that HP being off-line is a jolly jape and he also thinks that you are a poof. Funnily enough. . .

It’s about time you visited my blog.