What’s sauce for the goose…

So, Mr Seaton, –and I am sure that even if you don’t reply here you are reading every word, — you are certain that you will be receiving the right of reply from the good people at the Jewish Chronicle. I have the feeling that being decent compassionate human beings they will grant you what you seek.

However, you should examine your conscience and ask yourself why you do not do the same for those who feel slighted by comments in your own arena. Is it just that you cannot overrule your employers? Are you more exclusive, less generous or are those you didn’t grant the grace of reply just the children of a lesser god?

Matt Seaton could start by explaining why Jubilation1’s comment was deleted.
While he claims to hotly dispute the claims about CiF, he goes about proving those very same claims daily.
A hotbed of sophistry and arabist apologists.

An excellent evaluation of seaton:
———————————————————————————————–
DougallTheDog
5 Feb 2010, 4:35PM

DougallTheDog
5 Feb 2010, 4:04PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Quelle fucking suprise. As I said

So Freedom of Speech and all that Jazz is just so much nonsense when it comes to CiF editorial policy, and CiF can’t stand a little criticism without throwing all the toys out of the pram,

Matt Seaton – you are a child. A sad little, pathetic child who can’t take a little bit of criticism without crying and running off to mummy and (sniff) sobbing your little heart out (sniff) (sniff) because the nasty boys said something horrible (sniff) (sniff) to you.

I fully expect to get banned for this because that is your knee jerk reaction to a bit of criticism. You seriously pathetic little disgrace to Journalism.

CP Scott would be turning in his grave so fast you could start a fire with him.
———————————————————————————————

I could show the link to this post but what you would find there is only this:

———————————————————————————————-

DougallTheDog
5 Feb 2010, 4:36PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
———————————————————————————————-

Free speech at its peak on the Guardian CIF.

peter1, I wouldn’t dignify Seaton’s behaviour by calling it sophistry. I think it’s much more damaging and damaged than that.

Margie, Seaton already said that banning AKUS was the Mods’ fault.

He’s a thoroughly spineless individual.

If he is offered space at the JC, what’s the betting that it’ll be the sort of waffle as he offered before about (magic) circles of trust and whatnot.

I wonder if he would dare to admit on the JC blog that CiFWatch is serious competition for CiF?

Serendipity:
I wonder if he would dare to admit on the JC blog that CiFWatch is serious competition for CiF?

He’s already admitted it with his pouting either us or them ultimatum.

http://cifwatch.com/2010/02/04/if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us/

seaton hopes for a “right to reply”, isn’t it so typical to employ such language that has become second nature for the arabist apologists at the guardian?

What right to reply?
A right like the right of return that doesn’t exist, but in the hallowed halls of the guardian it….well maybe it doesn’t….kind of does if you hold the guardian mantra…hmmm but not for everybody….seaton does have a “right to reply”, of course he does, he’s already decided who does and doesn’t have a “right to reply”.

chutzpadik

Why don’t you post that to Matt Seaton, Andrew?

I really don’t understand the fuss over this. Alderman has written above the line for this website – whose sole stated purpose (although that’s not strictly true) is to pillory CiF for allegedly being an anti-Semitic website.

In Seaton’s position I personally wouldn’t have insisted that GA choose either/or, not least because I consider him harmless.

For Seaton it is perhaps simply a question of principle.

Alderman’s reference to “threats” is laughable. Like the majority of CiF contributors he is a guest, and I ultimately understand why he’s been shown the door.

I’m another who argues against the dishonest, exaggerated attacks on Israel and has been banned from CIF as a result. I’ve made sure to never demonize Muslims as a group or any other religion, but it didn’t matter

Those last two sentence-paragraphs above should not be in italics.

Ho hum.

Pretzel:
Here is where I think your argument about guests, carpets, etc fails:

CiF purports to be an open forum, as indicated by its name Comment is Free.

To censor people from writing there (absent for “cause” e.g. clear evidence of hate speech) because one has ferociously criticized CiF elsewhere (if, in fact such censorship has occurred and for such reasons), is in direct contradiction of the stated raison d’etre of CiF.

CiF is not some sort of private club, to which “guests” are invited. Rather it is an extremely high profile media platform that is well-entrenched as part of the media establishment in the United Kingdom. All manner of views are accepted to be posted there, although there is a clear bias among the editors (or apparachiks…choose your label) toward a particular political viewpoint, and against another (the latter of which often either directly supports or at the very least fosters a climate that comes close to, borders on, or in some instances crosses the line into outright anti-Semitism). So such a forum can’t wave the flag of “open” dialogue and discourse yet wield a heavy hand in banning certain speakers or viewpoints.

It’s simply undemocratic at its core.

Good weekend all.

Seaton’s theme song, from the archives:

Guardi-an-istas (To the tune of Copacabana. Hat tip: B. Manilow)

His name was Matthew, he was a show-boy,
Yellow feathers in his hair, up his tuches, everywhere.
He would cha-cha, and do the strip-tease,
And while Brian and Seth would beg, to know if each could shave one leg,
Matt shaved his eyebrows too, it made his head feel sore,
They were just friends, but they had each other,
Each day more and more.

Chorus: At the Guardian, Guardi-an-istas
They were not comrades there, but just brothas and sistas.
At the Guardian, Guardi-an-istas.
Moonin’ and flashin’ were always the fashion,
At the Guardian, they fell in love.

Her name was Bella, she wore a corset,
At GHQ, the coldest spot north-east of Dorset.
Belle gave Matt tsures. She gave him lip-schtick.
She wore her corset strung too tight, which made things hard in bed at night.
Belle and Matt were not friends so the rest of them knew
Who hadn’t shagged who.

Chorus: At the Guardian (etc.) (Fade.)

Oops, my last post to Daniel

Hi Pretzelberg

For Seaton it is perhaps simply a question of principle.

He must be a very principled person… see this

Robin Shepherd was justifiably upset, I think, at having his central thesis misrepresented by a regular CiF columnist: particularly as Lerman goes on to say that those who use the term “self hating Jew” are “moronic”, ”anti-semitic” and “stupid”. He therefore offered to write a response piece for Comment is Free, touching on the Lerman slur, but providing a broader overview of the issues.

After a prolonged negotiation, the Guardian turned him down, and is now accusing Shepherd of attempting to “browbeat” them.

Comment is Free is a funny site. It happily published a response piece from the Gilad Atzmon a few years ago although, unlike Robin Shepherd, Atzmon not a reputable political analyst but a professional musician and race baiter.

“… if the Guardian was run like any normal organization, you, Georgina and Brian would all have been slung out onto the streets a long time ago.”

Skid-row off her Mind (to the tune of “Georgia on My Mind”.)
(Hat tip: Hoagy Carmichael and Stuart Gorrell.)

Georgina, Georgina, a gin or two.
Just a sweet G&T keeps chugging off her mind, (when she’s so inclined).
With after-shave and Harpic; a witches’ brew;
Tastes so sweet and clear, coz meths will make her blind.

Bridge:”Other drinks reach out,” says she.
Rums and coke smile tenderly.
Still she needs her G&T,
& Harpic…with anti-freeze.

Georgina, Georgina, a quart or two.
Just a chug-chug-chug keeps skid-row off her mind, (skid-row off her mind).
Georgina, Georgina, still in the loo,
Coz the toilet cleaner’s now all she can find. (repeat)

(Comb and grease-proof paper solo.) DS Al Coda

“….we take great exception to Geoffrey Alderman’s column in the JC……and hope to gain a right of reply…”

Actually, I also take great exception to my treatment by the Guardian and CiF. Will I get a right of reply?

Yeah, right.

Seaton, from experience I expect your reply will be a farrago of half truths, twists and turns and attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

The blogosphere has shown that institutions cannot treat people like fools and expect them not to react. It has shown you up because by its very nature it is democratic. Apparently the Guardian can’t deal with that and so you close down the arguments you disagree with, just like any other tinpot dictatorship.

As a result, the Guardian’s CiF has become the favoured meeting place of racists and apologists for terror and a right of reply is denied those who dare to disagree.

cityca – I intend to write to Stephen Pollard, not to ask him to silence Seaton, but to request that people like you, and me and many others, can comment on what he says.

Perhaps you would like to do the same if you have not already?

pretzelberg, by all means call this a storm in a teacup (and where have I heard that from you before?…. oh, I know, a propos that Bapthorpe was talking on CiF about wanting the shooting “only” of West Bank Jewish settlers).

But even you must know that it isn’t.

And as for, “..For Seaton it is perhaps simply a question of principle…”

??? No!

Seaton is trying to cover his arse. Given his performance hitherto I doubt that he would know a principle if it bit him on the arse.

@pretzelberg – “…Do guests have the right to attempt to sh*t on the carpet?”

No, but you’ve been around here quite a bit, pretzel. You have not sh*t on this carpet yet but you are wont to bystand while others do, and minimised the effect of some of the most poisonous remarks on CiF so what exactly does that make you?

All this goes to whether the Guardian/CiF is big enough to be able to take any criticism at all of its vendetta against Israel, as well as its failure to make sure that this vendetta does not descend into Jew-hatred. It also goes to CiF’s borderline crazy denial that it does such things, when the evidence is out there for all to see!

CiF has shown time and time again that not only is it not big enough, but also that it cannot brook any criticism and is openly partisan in its approach and is thus in contravention of the most essential ethical rules of journalism.

“Why pick on me?”

I seem to remember you challenging either dopey or exiled once (or was it vice versa?)

Perhaps you can remind me.

And I would like a reasonable chat with you pretzel.

Perhaps beginning with how it feels for you to post here and on CiF and what mental gymnastics you might have to perform before you can do both.

Pretzelberg

Fact: Robin Shepherd asked the CIF editors to answer Lerman’s slurs and his request has been refused.

read this:

I have no intention of going to court with anyone unless it comes to a clear case of personal denigration. I guess my point in raising this subject was to try and get a sense of what readers think to be the best course of action when one’s arguments are misrepresented and the media outlet in question refuses a right to reply. The fact is, of course, that both Antony Lerman and the Guardian have made fools of themselves by their behaviour.

Justifying the ultimatum of writing for CiF or CiFwatch on the basis that CiFwatch is dedicated to pointing out the anti-semitism at the guardian is a very good example of sophistry.
In this the guardian has been successful, as they have nurtured sophistry, the people making these statements really do believe they are positing a valid argument, or if not argument, a valid debating point.

That is precisely what sophistry is- a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

There is no justification to this type of ultimatum, that does very much go to the core of democracy.
The guardian shoots itself in the foot by banning Alderman on the basis of writing for CiFwatch as they are just amplifying their anti-semitic slant.

You have to be a house jew to write at the guardian, both above and below the line, with the few token exceptions, emphasis on token.

What seaton SHOULD be concerning himself with is how does his rag manage to proffer up a steady diet of articles and comments to keep THIS site going????

Not that I have polled anybody and I recognize that this is a rash generalization I’m about to make, but this site would be very to close down on the basis of there not being a NEED for it.

Bravo seaton, your efforts caused this site, developed this site, grow this site as more and more people speak out and see your rag for what it has become.

Duvid Crockett, could you right a cover of The Jam’s That’s Entertainment called Matt’s Entertainment?

pretzelberg

What – do you want a media blackout on bin Laden?

I have seldom taken the time to jost with you but don’t you find it disconcerting that the Guardian solicits ‘articles’ from members of Hamas and Hizbollah yet warns Professor Aldermen to shut up or be discriminated against?

TG

” Critical Jews – banned! Hamas terrorists – welcome!”

I think that any Hamas spokesperson should have to make a statement condemning past Hamas violence against civilians before being allowed to write for the Guardian. I wonder if Alderman would be prepared to do the same about the IDF?

Berchmans your attempt at equating Israeli self-defence with Hamas terrorism is an indication either of your own woeful lack of morality or ignorance of the truth of the situation in Israel.

Dopey, do you think that the following would qualify a Hamas thug to write for CiF, had the Hamas idiots not subsequently made a complete Horlicks of it? (My feeling is that the coven ceased to allow active members Hamas to pollute CiF any more than they themselves pollute it because glorification of, and support for, terrorism is now an offence under UK law).

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147854.html

Note in particular

“….In the report by a committee set up by Hamas to examine the UN war crimes allegations, the authors said “we regret any harm that may have befallen any Israeli civilian.”

“We hope the Israeli civilians understand that their government’s continued attacks on us were the key issue and the cause,” added the report, of which Reuters obtained a copy.”

So far so good and a faint glimmer of a willingness to accept some responsibility, but subsequently:

“…Mohammed-Faraj al-Ghoul, justice minister in the Hamas government and the chairman of the committee which drafted the report, said on Saturday “some words or phrases were taken out of context. The report held the [Israeli] occupation fully responsible and it did not include apologies.”

Later in the article note the excuse that Hamas can’t aim its weaponry properly so it hits Israeli civilians by mistake! (I kid you not):

“…The Hamas report, after listing Palestinian grievances such as the Israeli embargo on Gaza, reaffirmed comments by officials of the 22-year-old Islamist movement that its improvised rockets were fired purely defensively and were aimed at Israeli military targets. They simply lacked the necessary accuracy, Hamas said.

“It should be noted that the Palestinian resistance…is not an organized army that possesses developed technological weapons,” the report said. “It may target a military site or a tank position and their fire goes astray…and hit a civilian location, despite their efforts to avoid hurting civilians.”

Oh… right…. they were aiming at soldiers and other military but their rockets being “rudimentary” and “firecrackers” couldn’t be aimed properly so they hit Israeli civilians.

But the rocket bombardment went on for over eight years! Even the thickest Hamas thug might have been expected to realise, even after the first week, that the rockets couldn’t be precisely aimed BUT HAMAS STILL CONTINUED THE BOMBARDMENT! There’s also the not so little matter that there were no military targets in or around Sderot, where most of the rockets fell.

All of which, of course, rather makes a nonsense of the “We weren’t aiming at civilians deliberately” insanity defence, does it not?

Now, dopey, how likely is it do you think given the frankly mad statements by the equally frankly crazy Hamas, that any of its operatives would be prepared to make a statement along the lines you described above?

If that’s the only thing that prevents Georgina paying money to terrorists to write for CiF, it’s probably a fair bet that we are safe from such rubbish for some time to come.

“Bravo seaton, your efforts caused this site, developed this site, grow this site as more and more people speak out and see your rag for what it has become.”

Way to go Peter1 !

TG

I didn’t realise Abandon Hope was Berchmans. Suddenly a lot makes sense!

Berchmans is also ‘Dopey’ in Serendipity’s excellent post.

Duvid – you should record and publish all these!

@ Biodegradable

I was simply saying that I had a recollection of Shepherd being reluctant to write a piece on CiF.

I, and peterthehungarian (twice) have shown that either your memory (recall) is failing, or simply that you continue to “imagine” things just in order to nit-pick.
You showed no such thing – only that the website Harry’s Place (a dependable source??) had claimed that Shepherd had been denied the right to reply.

Now, while I freely admit my memory could have been confusing me, it is possible that my recollection was of some earlier comment by Shepherd.

At the same time, however, that link from his own website makes it clear that in the Lerman case he certainly was denied a response – which I personally find both a shame and difficult to justify.

No need for you to get nasty, OK?

p.s. FYI I did in fact spend a couple of minutes Googling for the purposes of confirmation / correction.
;-)

Harry’s Place (a dependable source??) had claimed that Shepherd had been denied the right to reply.

peter1 also showed you Shepherd himself, on his blog, saying the same thing.

Do try to keep up!

My guess is that some moderator let the power go to their head.

modernityblog

However, the usual suspects seem undecided on the matter.

One very clear conclusion is that the ‘usual suspects’ exist in a parallel universe and have a complete absence of any intellectual approach.

Sorry to mention it in public but, the usual suspects are a very small sideshow to the people who are ‘Left’. The problem is that they are very vocal and the silent majority rather lazy.

Abandon hope

The Guardian will see this as an extremist site dedicated to their destruction using gross hyperbole …

Dedicated to the destruction of The Guardian??
What was that you were saying about “gross hyperbole” … ?