CJ Morgan,

You have overlooked some important issues in your haste to claim vindication of your squalid vendetta against myself.

As far as I am aware, you have no moral or legal right to have conducted this inquisition, and I have not pleaded guilty to your charges.

Only I can know whether or not your allegation against me is true, just as only you can know for certain whether or not the account Ginx is a fictitious creation of your own.

At face value, what occurred on this forum, is that I had openly asked two other OLO users, 'cacofonix' and 'Olduvai' to make posts on my behalf at points where my own OLO limits would not have allowed me to have done so.

A reasonable and well-intentioned person would have considered this understandable in the circumstances. No malice or dishonesty was ever intended on my part and no demonstrable harm was done. You, yourself, having in one breath used the occasion of a post by 'cacofonix' as a pretext to insult me, in the very next breath shamelessly acknowledged your appreciation of that post:

"I actually quite liked the 'teaser' from his blog mate, but I haven't read the full article yet." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97447)

---

You have not acknowledged the massive extent of your own dishonesty in this discussion. This includes your attempt to embellish your original allegations in order to depict me as a serial fraudster on OLO:

1. your own failure to find questions I had put to you being held as further 'proof' that I must be using other fictitious acounts (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97093), and

2. that I deliberately concealed my own identity when I discussed my own article on another forum(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96234).

No, it won't be possible for me to "move on".

By your shameful time-wasting and disruptive behaviour, including your attempted blackmail, you have destroyed any trust that may have been possible between us.

I also live in SEQ, and it is more than likely that we will cross paths one day soon, and when we do I will be taking great care to watch my back.

1)

I hope that we can move on.

It is the bitterest of ironies that there is now some acknowledgment of using more than one identity Mr Sinnamon.
THAT is what this was about; ongoing conflict was the denial of that!

I make absolutely no apology for agreeing with another poster. ( Yes, ANOTHER. I do NOT know CJM.)I was agreeing with the nonsensical logic of taking umbrage at those who used the 'wrong' identity when two* where freely used, albeit that one was as an article writer; BOTH were there for all to see.

* I need to make something clear here James. When I was done over by 'sock puppets' on this site (The instigator IS back on the forum); I didn't even know what the terminology meant. I Googled it!
My point being that any MULTI Id's from you would be something of which I could never be sure.

You will note that I never made reference to sock puppets in relation to you. My issue was/is your sensitivity to the use of the 'wrong' ID by another poster. It struck me as ludicrous. It still does.

As said by CJM, the sad thing is that I agree with much of what you say. (I worked for the SAHT for a number of years. It would have been good to talk to you elsewhere on that issue and how it has evolved).

Your colleague in her first post here referred to 'allocated pseudonyms...have a function....are a safety valve'.
Yet in her second post she remonstrates with me for my ability to remain anonymous! It's OK for you but not for me...?

2)

Ms. Newman's assertion about bullies is frankly valid. But bullies are in the eye of the beholder...
Online specifically, those who are not agreed with, and choose to repeatedly engage with those who oppose their views, CAN be defined as bullies.

THAT was what I meant by: "as you wish Mr Sinnamon; as you wish".
You see James; I see YOU as a bully. I see you as doggedly and determinedly pushing an opinion that you now admit was not entirely true. But you were determined. I was not going to take that, because I disagreed with you.

Who is the bully? Eye of the beholder.

Ms. Newman (Kanga) referred to you as Daggett/Sinnamon in her post in "Dictatorial Conduct" of 23/8. THAT was clearly OK with you.
Kanga repeatedly defended an article by Ms. Newman in "A Crisis in Housing Affordability" WITHOUT making it clear that she WAS Ms. Newman.

Does it really surprise you that I take exception to lessons in propriety from either of you?

I would add here that having just reviewed the thread with my part 1 offering, it's clear that this will be ongoing. I hope not.

Excellent article, Jennifer.

I had somehow missed it until now or I would have contributed to the debate.

Just wanted you to know that your gutsy effort to highlight the racial discrimination inherent in our immigration system is very much appreciated. Not that it would surprise me if you haven't continued to read down this far after seeing the avalanche of venom your writing has unleashed. Though it must be said there are some worthy exceptions in amongst the bile.

Hope to hear more from you in the future.

It depends upon what sort of society you want, Wizofaust. People with low IQ’s socially interact and people with high IQ’s do the same. But the societies built by people with average to high IQ’s "interact" successfully.

And there is justification for judging people’s IQ’s according to their skin colour, the most common (mean) IQ score for US blacks is 85 while for whites it is 103. There may be smart blacks around but they do not appear in the same proportion as in white populations. Judging people by their group associations may not be entirely accurate, but then it does not need to be. It only needs to be accurate enough to form a reasonable opinion.

If education ( Flynn Effect) makes people smarter, then it makes dumb, average and smart people smarter. Dumb people may make significant improvement because there is so much scope for improvement. The gap between intelligences may get closer between different levels of intelligence, but that does not mean it is possible to close it. You will never educate a person with low intelligence to be an Einstein.

As for the concept of equality, it is a good guiding principle but if taken as an absolute truth it becomes idiotic. The present unacceptable situation regarding aboriginal people came about because people like you insisted that aboriginals must be treated equally with whites. The idea that people barely out of the stone age were going to function equally in the computer age was flawed from the start. Anti racist people like yourself insisted that Paternalism was Racism and demanded that nothing less than full equality with whites was the bottom line. Racist people like myself pointed out that giving aboriginal people equal rights meant giving them the right to drink alcohol and that would be catastrophic to aboriginal society.

It is obvious now that the racists were right.

Now James, you are showing yourself up to be not only a liar, but a nasty, snivelling one at that. When presented with an opportunity to move on beyond your demonstrated misdemeanours, you instead go on the attack - as you have done throughout this entire silly thread. While I appreciate that you've painted yourself into a corner and it's undoubtedly difficult to admit publicly that you've been lying all along, there really is no excuse for your current very poor behaviour.

How did this start? As I recall, I questioned the veracity of a supposed quotation from Gore Vidal (that you never subsequently validated), and you responded with a precious request that I refer to you as 'daggett', despite you have identified yourself on OLO as James Sinnamon. So far so good, but when I questioned the intellectual honesty of copying a dodgy, unverifiable, dog-whistling strawman quotation in this debate, you decided to attack me personally, via your sockpuppet account 'cacofonix'. Your justification for this was that you'd have to wait a whole day before attacking me otherwise, but in so doing you had to dishonestly pretend to be someone else.

From there it just got worse, and you introduced yet another sockpuppet acccount, 'Olduvai', in order to wage your silly war on me. Again, you had to pretend be somebody else in order to perpetrate the deception, all the while attacking me personally for having had the temerity to catch you out.

[continued]