Comments on: The argument is simple, Senator Conroy

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:49:22 +0000

@Mark Newton: [smirks] Glad to see you popped by. Your piece on the ABC website today, Filter advocates need to check their facts, was another fine addition to the dialog.

By: Mark Newton

Mark Newton — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:19:11 +0000

Quoting Stephen Stockwell:

a week and a half later and you’d never know Australian Women Online ever existed

“Australian Women Offline”?

– mark

By: Stephen Stockwell

Stephen Stockwell — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:02:48 +0000

Anyway … a week and a half later and you’d never know Australian Women Online ever existed, from their lack of response. Presumably these are the same school mums whose sage advice to their kids is to “just ignore” anyone else who starts giving them grief in the schoolyard. (I remember receiving that advice myself as a lad. And it Doesn’t. Fucking. Work.)

I’m not defending bullies. But I AM attacking closed-minded ignorance. ESPECIALLY when the guilty are on-record as wanting to engage in some sort of “rational debate” about the topic. But here’s a taste of their latest update:

“We are not in a position to provide a forum for this debate on our website.”
(We want a debate, we have an opinion, but we don’t want to be questioned about it.)

“We do not have the available manpower to handle the high volume of comments.”
(Comments were closed from the get-go. Just because we call for a rational debate, doesn’t mean we actually want to have one.)

“It is not our role nor is it our responsibility, to address the concerns of every single individual who is opposed to ISP filtering.”
(We were expecting a lot more support than this.)

“Please note we will not reply to any further individual correspondence on this issue.”
(Just fuck off.)

Frauds.

By: Stephen Stockwell

Stephen Stockwell — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:32:15 +0000

The standard of political satire seriously needs to rise in this country, folks. No one’s really been up to the standard of John Clarke since, well, John Clarke. But even then, he’s a Kiwi. And he’s not going to be gracing our screens and pages forever. Must get sharper.

By: Hon. Senator Conroy

Hon. Senator Conroy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:46:42 +0000

And thank you for you and all readers here for Voting me the:
“CeNsorship hero of the centUry who is the most loved by all aussie neT users” of the week two times running so far!

(CNUT of the week)

I thank you again and as a result for this lovely Compliment I will not Silence any members here

By: Hon. Senator Conroy

Hon. Senator Conroy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:41:33 +0000

This is Stevie; I am not going to respond to you or anyone.
I am not even going to give you my contact Details.

This as well as all Truth Sites will be shut down as soon as it Becomes Law.
REPEAT:I will shut down this site, and all others that tell issues with no agenda.

DON’T even try to get the media on your side there isn’t any Discussion allowed.

I have already silenced a few Individuals, and I’m not talking with Money either.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:10:36 +0000

Wow. The Australian Women Online piece and subsequent boilerplate response by them has certainly generated interest! The one word which immediately comes to mind is “loopy”.

By: furiousennui

furiousennui — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:00:20 +0000

My email to the AWO… we’ll see what response I elicit.

Let me see if I got this straight. You say the debate about internet filtering is separate to the debate about the legality of pornography? Yet, before the debate about the legality of pornography is held you want to censor it?

You claim to be about being a “voice” for “ordinary” Australians, yet you censor debate on your unsupportable and outrageous claims by disabling comments?

You say that you have been inundated by emails from the “minority” declaiming the proposed internet filtering. What is the ratio of emails supporting your views to those indicating opposition to those views? How do you substantiate your claim to speak for any sort of majority? Who and where are your constituents? Are they the 0 people who have signed your online widget saying no to violence against women (and why just women? Why not just say no to violence against anyone, irrespective of race, gender, sexual preference etc?).

By: Genevieve Robey

Genevieve Robey — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:35:26 +0000

Such an amusing reaction by Australian Women Online.

How could we ignore her/their argument?

I also linked to AWO’s post. We index the misguided too.

Highlight irrational arguments. Then share, discuss (have a laugh in the process), educate, protest.

Why? Because, unfortunately, there’s others out there like AWO, and it’s not us that we’re trying to reach.

By: Stephen Stockwell

Stephen Stockwell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:55:09 +0000

Thus was my response:
Right.

So the real issue for you here is POWER; internet censorship is just a ruse. You really are a fraud.
The reason everyone’s linking to your article is because it’s not that often the world gets to see such a magnificent specimen of ignorant, hypocritical nonsense – untainted by ANY understanding of the rising mountain of critical evidence (that’s readily available if you ever bother to READ IT).
Yes, it’s all helping attract more hits to your web site – but only so people can laugh at your thoroughly un-researched excuse for an argument.
Small world, white-picket fence mentalities like yours only highlight the very IRRATIONAL dumbing-down of this debate, by proponents of comprehensive internet censorship, which helps build the case against it.
So if you think any publicity is good publicity, then you’re hopelessly deluded.
And frankly, I take being called “faster than Google, for Christ sakes!” to be a very high compliment.
So thank you.

And if you don’t mind, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t just copy-&-paste me the same reply you’re obviously sending to everyone else who’s taking you to task over this.
It just makes you look lazy, if not overwhelmed with criticism.

Regards,
Stephen

By: Kate Carruthers

Kate Carruthers — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:53:03 +0000

Always good to see the sisterhood engaging with important issues for our society in a constructive, caring & supportive way.

By: Stephen Stockwell

Stephen Stockwell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:25:24 +0000

Anyone who cares to email the editors of Australian Women Online with criticism over that howler of an article supporting internet censorship can expect to receive this howler of a response, that they’re obviously copy-&-pasting to keep up with the sheer volume of criticism:

You guys are so stupid – you want to deal with us effectively than ignore us because you are giving us way too much power in this debate. Why do you care so much about what we have to say on this issue anyway?

We think it is rather amusing that you flock to our website in your thousands, hanging on our every word and action. Don’t deny it – whenever we write something on ISP filtering it’s linked to within the hour – you guys are faster than Google for Christ sakes!

If you’re so smart why can’t you work it out for yourselves – ignore us and we have no power, no influence and no voice on this debate. All you’re doing here is directing lots of attention our way and diverting it from yourselves. Duh!

Deborah Robinson
Editor, Australian Women Online

So there you have it, folks. The real issue for AWO here is POWER; internet censorship is just a ruse. And frankly, I take being called “faster than Google, for Christ sakes!” to be a very high compliment. Don’t you?