Numbat – what an appropriate name! Me thinks you doth protest too much. Are you a friend of the author or just a fellow closet plagiarist, fearful of discovery? If you focus your criticism of me on your own response, you will see the hypocrisy of your blathering.

Goodonya, Grey! Stick it to them. Let me give you some assistance.

Pericles – My propensity for sanguinary behaviour and my choice of sexual partners may well be up for judgement – but the decision is well-and-truly in for this author: she is an adjudged fraud, hoaxer, plagiarist, and anti-Semite. No-one with those crimes on their slate can ever again think that their public writings can stand on their own. (Take note, Numbat.)

Fred Thornett – Speaking of dolts, Fred, you should really read the content of the postings a little further. I’ll explain it in terms that even you can understand: The real problem is not that ‘our Helen’ adopted her husband’s name of ‘Dale’but that she dropped her real name of ‘Darville’ and took on the fake name of ‘Dimidenko’, perpetrating “Australia's most notorious publishing hoax”. Got it now?

Romany – In case I’m one of those “petulant persons” to whom you refer, we are not trying to ‘shoot the messenger’; she’s the author.

Hamlet – I am not surprised that one who has passed through the hallowed and rigorous halls of a School of Sociology would harbour the view such as “Who cares who writes a piece of work[?]” Unfortunately for that view, universities that spawn sociology departments keep them in line by enforcing a university’s most academically paramount rule: that against plagiarism. My concern has now become skewed towards incredulity by witnessing your alignment with (or is it “as”?) a Judges Associate that takes such a cavalier approach to the truth.

Pericles - I understand your point about my “gratuitous ad hominem” but, if you look to the posting of “our Helen” (‘skepticlawyer’) in her criticism of the journalist, Simon Caterson, it moves from ad hominem quickly through to ad nauseam.

Regards
Doc.

Doc

I only did two sociology subjects: one was more anthropology than sociology, the other one was subject that I found appalling.

My majors were actually history and politics / international relations, and in both schools post-modernism was dealt with critically rather than being assumed to be the way to the truth (which is understandable because in post modernism there is no 'truth', or so I am told).

My personal opinion about post-modernism is that it was thought up by the French in the aftermath of WW2, because the French were closer collaborators with the Nazis than even some of Germany's allies. What better way to excuse crimes against humanity than to produce a system of thought that claims that there is no right or wrong?

What better way to dicredit what people think as truths in other areas?

I actually know Foucault about post-modernism (no, its not original).

I have my favourite historians, those who I credit with more and detailed research than others. To add to this education, the uni that I attended required study in four quite simple half subjects from outside of the school in which students are majoring. I was happy to do these subjects from the schools of science, medicine and law.

Contrary to an opinion expressed on this grate sight, I do not work as a tea lady for judges' associates. I have been known to get a judge or two a cuppa when their staff are not available, however.

Doc, anyone who has said in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5327#66482 that "You can take the boy out of Croatia, but you can't take Croatia out of the boy" is hardly in a position to call someone else an "adjudged anti-semite" or any other form of racist.

Helen has indeed been judged as an anti-semite. At one point, I believed it myself, until I looked at the facts: the Devil was indeed in the Details. A hoaxer she is, and a sancti bovinicide par excellence, to mangle three languages in a single sentence. But any form of racist? No.

Now how the heck did a post about the many Pagan traditions that have been continued, and are now looked upon as part of "traditional Christmas" degenerated into such a vituperative argument?

If Helen is wrong in some minor details, then by all means give URLs showing where and how. If she is wrong in the main thrust of her article - implying that for example, many Christian sects do not look upon the traditional Santa Claus/Christmas Tree/Celebration as a Pagan abomination - then they should give URLs about that too. I would be extremely sceptical of that last though, having attended an English Baptist Church when young.

Please, less heat, more light, and the attack on the author is most un-Christian. Doc, I've read some of your posts, this isn't like you. Despite the Croatian remark I alluded to, which some of the hard-of-thinking would take out of context and call Racist, if you're racist, ik ben Nederlandser.

And may I request the militant atheists to moderate their tone too? After all, if this really is all there is, it costs little to be polite, and even indulge people in their belief in imaginary friends, if it does no harm.

But above all, More URLs and less emotion please!

I am beginning to think that this list is composed mostly of weird folk with major personality problems.

Sure Helen Dale did assume a pen name - and persona - when she wrote her book. How about that? An author actually used a pen name when composing a book that won the Miles Franklin Award. Now unless I am mistaken, Miles Franklin was in the pen name business too.

I think that it is precious of those of you who are upset about Helen Dale. Sure she has irritated many a second rate academic and has made immense fun of Australia's self appointed literati. But her book was either good enough to win the Award on its own merits, or the award was given to the author because of her presumed Ukrainian ethnicity.

I find the whole furore ludicrous, but then I do not think that puncturing the egos of pompous academics is even an intellectual misdemeanor, let alone a cultural crime.

If the waffle on this thread is typical of the generality of posts on this site, I guess that I will have to turn to something of a higher intellectual level for amusement. Perhaps commercial TV would be somewhat more substantial.

Helen Dale is correct in the bulk and substance of her assertions. If you cannot see that then you have greatly flawed awareness. Second rate minds will find enjoyment in quibbling and hair splitting, but Helen Dale is very much cleverer than you lot. And I reckon that this is the root cause of most of the chagrin and vituperation about her.

And I still cannot understand why so many of you shelter behind idiotic pen names. Who do you think you are? :)

Dear Zoe Brain,

Thank you for your words of moderation. We can sometimes let our egos get control of our keyboards. I stand chastened and apologetic.

As I hope you are not Dutch (as per the tenor of your translation), I am certainly not a racist. (In fact, one of my current incarnations has me on a committee with the UN supporting universal human rights.)

I will try to be more circumspect in my future posts.

Regards
Doc.

This has been quite the stoush while I've been away, although it seems to have calmed down now, for which I'm grateful. Thank-you Zoe for your thoughtful remarks. I hope you don't mind me telling people here that you thought me a racist until you read my novel.

Yes folks, Zoe took the time to get in contact with me. That's what you call good sleuthing and an unwillingness to be swayed by media/propaganda (for that's what much of it is, these days). I also think Fred's point about commercial television is well made. This site has a lot of good material on it. I'm sure it's possible to do better in our commentary than the shallowness that one sees in various cruddy shows (which I won't name because we all know what they are).

Doc, I harbour no ill-feeling towards you. When you write for a major blog, you get used to stoushing. I would ask you, however, to remember that Zoe exposed an infelicity of yours in much the same way as the media did to me some 11 years ago. I don't think you're a racist - not for a moment. But the comment looks bad, and spread all over the interwebs (as is so easy these days) it may be hard to fight off that implication. That is how media reporting works - it waits for some public figure or politician to put their foot in it, and then runs with the stuff-up for all it's worth. And we wonder why our politicians and community leaders speak in cliches and sound-bites.

Once again, I invite the (obviously large number of people) who've stopped by this page to visit the rest of the crew (many more than just me) at http://catallaxyfiles.com/