Comments on: Selective moderation

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 06 May 2008 05:07:25 +0000

RVW, sounds like a useful exercise. I reckon you should author a guest post here once the examples have been rounded up.

By: racial vilification watcher

racial vilification watcher — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:48:53 +0000

As to the foul and abusive posts the mods consistently allow to be posted keep an eye out for the clearly racist posts of regular posters spencer de vere, tony coburg & ronald reagun (there is prob more but these r the regulars).

Have noticing their offencive posts allowed time and again over a long time.

will try and find examples and post here.

By: Infidel

Infidel — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:37:20 +0000

Considering Bolt removed the comment from his blog it is a little disingenuous to claim that it somehow represents his views or has his tacit support.

What I find interesting is that if you type the first three lines of the offending letter into google, this site appears as the number one listing.

Who exactly is hosting hatespeech on the internet?

By: Steven Rogan

Steven Rogan — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:05:05 +0000

Oh, his haughtiness knows no bounds. I imagine he imagines himself as some sort of Mr Chips character- a benevolent autocrat, who everyone loves, honours and respects dearly, and whom he loves in his faux-grumpy style, despite their cheekiness.

By: Gerard Hennicke

Gerard Hennicke — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:27:06 +0000

Oh, by the way D-Man, the reason I did not write a post replying to “Henry Ford” was that I have been banned sometime ago with the following comment from Andrew -

“If your cause is reflected in you, it is evil. I shall ask Bernie whether you should be banned from this site, which you stain with your presence.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mcmullen_in_the_wars/

I probably deserved it but I reckon he’s good at dishing out the abuse but not very good at taking it.

By: Gerard Hennicke

Gerard Hennicke — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:16:58 +0000

Henry Ford was a bit a give away wasn’t it? I mean he was an anti-semite and a follower of Hitler wasn’t he?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm

By: Dam Buster of Preston

Dam Buster of Preston — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:03:53 +0000

D Man – By your own post a number of people actually did reply over a period between 1:19pm and 10:01am the next day.

Surely if they went to the effort they oculd have mentioned it? I have done it before myself and had posts snipped to take out abusive comments.

Based on the follow up posts by Bolt it was intentionally left in place to stir the emotions and to accuse the “hateful left”

By: The D Man

The D Man — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:52:30 +0000

Gerard,

Why didn’t you use the “reply” to respond to Henry Fords disgusting post? The Moderators would have picked it up straight away and removed it a lot sooner.

These are the comments that were left by some posters.

* Ben replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (02:29pm)

Rubbish, Henry.

* Peter o the west replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (03:02pm)

It our constitution it mentions the Ayran race in which we should protect.

Wrong, Henry.

In 1967 the Constitution removed the two discriminatory clauses against aboriginals. The White Australia policy was never any part of the Constitution (amendments to the 1901 version are still traceable). The Commonwealth was given the power to enact laws in reference to immigration. They then did, but only as Acts of parliament.

* Matt replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (03:37pm)

See your psychologist, URGENTLY!!!!!

* Steve replied to Henry Ford
Thu 17 Apr 08 (09:11pm)

Nice try Troll, but no cigar.

* We’re not as stupid as you seem to think! replied to Henry Ford
Fri 18 Apr 08 (10:01am)

“Henry Ford,” you’re not fooling anyone. You are a lefty loser deliberately trying to stir up trouble by posting “provocative” comments like that.

Nice try, but no cigar. Go back to BoltWatch.

Wanker.

Gerard, why did you not post a “reply” to Henry Ford if you were offended? I suggest that you wrote the post to cause mischief.

btw, a lot of posts do get lost along the way, the Fairfax blogs also have a similar problem.

By: Gerard Hennicke

Gerard Hennicke — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:06:13 +0000

Have you checked out the following on Bolt’s Blog today ….

‘It’s true that bloggers sometimes accidentally put up comments from readers which they’ve failed to read properly. Last week, for instance, a Leftist troll sent a foul racist slur to my blog, pretending to be what he imagined a Right-winger to be, and a fill-in moderator let it slip through. It was removed as soon as Jon Faine kindly and privately alerted me to its existence, having been contacted by the suspected perpetrator in the hope of causing me embarrasment.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/best_and_brightest_barbarian/
I don’t mind Jon Faine stealing my thunder (yes I sent him an email) but Bolt’s accusation that I infact posted the obscene comment is totally false and he knows it.

I actually phoned The Herald Sun the day before the offending post was removed to lodge a complaint as well as sending an email to the Editor and even Bolt himself. It took a good eighteen hours to remove the post. For Bolt to blame a slack moderator is just a smokescreen. If I hadn’t contacted Jon I reckon it would still be up there. If not for the anti-semetic part it would have stayed because the same sort of comments about Muslims or Aboriginals for that matter is considered fair game.

Is Andrew telling porkys? You decide.

By: Dam Buster of Preston

Dam Buster of Preston — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:55:10 +0000

Iain,

The only comment made here about length of posts was made by a confessed “right wing loon” in Matthew.

Do not make assumptions on flawed information.