'Pollywaffle'. Very good. I like it.

As you were.

Interesting, but unconvincing Boaz.

>>Your and others, post modernism Pericles is found in your continual reference to 'your interpretation of obscure documents' line.<<

Surely it is the act of "interpretation" that most people consider to be the major postmodernist sin? Deconstruction, and all that?

In which case I would respectfully point out that only one person here is doing the "interpretation of obscure documents", Boaz, and it sure ain't me.

So if it is indeed the interpretation part that leads to the crime of post-modernism, then yours must be the fault, not mine. If I am guilty of anything, it is that I am forced to point out your post-modernist bent with monotonous regularity.

>>Neo Marxist? In the sense that it is defined in Wikipedia (refer)
The criticism of critics of Islam would be one evidence.<<

Wikipedia says "This section does not cite any references or sources."

This means that even in the wild and wacky world of Wiki, the definition cannot be trusted.

Have a look at the entry on Marxism, which has no such caveat, and tell me which parts apply to me, in the "neo" sense.

But your idea that my "criticism of critics of Islam" is somehow evidence of neo-Marxism absolutely fascinates me, Boaz.

What is it about "critics of Islam" that keeps them immune from criticism themselves?

Is it perhaps because they are, by definition, right?

And that anyone who doesn't go along with them is somehow not only automatically wrong, but wrong in a neo-Marxist manner?

You have frequently been found wanting in the logic department, Boaz, but this is your finest non sequitur yet.

However, the real depth of your "issue" is well described by you.

>>IF... as Bendle says, Burke is 'as' he says.. then in the words of some other academics "it's eyebrow raising"<<

Eyebrow raising.

"To appear or feel skeptical, surprised, mildly scandalized".

You can imagine the scene. A bunch of academics (what would be the collective noun, I wonder?) all sitting around, raising a mildly scandalized eyebrow, before returning to the crossword.

A micro-storm in a tiny teacup.

Polycrap claims he's not indulging in another of his routine scare campaigns. He's "raising an issue".

And it's an important issue, he says because an obscure academic (named Bendle) says so and another academic (named Burke) has been given a position at "our ADFA".

<<IF... as Bendle says, Burke is 'as' he says.. then in the words of some other academics "it's eyebrow raising".....>>

No need for the capital IF Davo. Nor the pluralisation of "other academics" - only one other academic has raised his eyebrows. But let the facts not get in the way of a good scare.

Now, what's the scare - er I mean issue?

It seems to be something like "... the tone and texture of information passed on to our budding Military officers is most crucial in forming their attitudes toward our enemies." In other words, one academic in "our ADFA" may have views on terrorism that do not agree with another academic (well two other academics).

And the prognostication? For our future military officers "...it is highly unlikely that their motivation would be 100%."

Takes me back to Melbourne University when Manning Clark taught history from a Marxist position (in about the 1950-60s as I recall). Look at the havoc he created - all those little communists running around Melbourne creating mayhem and undermining civil society.

But WAIT! These reds have been holding their fire. "...The targets, among which is the MCG at Grand Final time..and now.. we have "finals fever" at that very venue." My GOD David, you've got it.

Have you passed this on to ASIO? Have they liaised with Bushy?

Pericles,

I think you'll find that the collective noun for academics is "a Faculty".

And the head of the Faculty is usually called a "Fachead".

According to Terry Flew, Professor of
Media and Communication in the Creative
Industries Faculty at the Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, and
I quote:

"The extent to which The
Australian has established itself as an
amplification point for any criticism of
academics that is made in Quadrant. We have
had a recent instance of this in relation to
the historian Stuart Macintyre, and now another
with Tony Burke.

The resulting influence this gives to a small
number of writers associated with Quadrant, such
as Bendle, editor Keith Windschuttle, and
educationalist Kevin Donnelly.

How this dovetails into the campaign of the
Young Liberals, which is supported by Donnelly
and Windschuttle, to "out" alleged leftists
in Australian universities.

Whether a new McCarthyism is too strong a word for
this is a moot point. What is apparent is that
The Australian has taken on a extraordinarily partisan
position in relation to scholarly disagreements, and
is looking like a sounding-board for Quadrant and
the Young Liberals.

Bendle, Donnelly and Windschuttle have received a lot
of space in its opinion pages, in what looks like
an archestrated campaign to use the paper to politically
shape university teaching in directions that would be at
odds with assumption about academic freedom."

I think what Foxy presents here is very plausible and important. Our mainstream news media have been corrupted by their urgent need for entertainment of the public...they care a lot less about accuracy or matters of great significance than playing childish games with reality and actual people's lives.

There is no meaningful contribution in labelling another academic "pro-terrorist" or simplifying his research into phrases that are easily and readily dramatised by corrupt media such as The Australian. To me this reduces the credibility of Bendle, though I think his goal was not one of credibility, but a simple attack on Burke for holding an researched opinion that he 'didn't like or approve of' as the source of Foxy's post indicates. People must be attentive and wary of these abuses...I've sometimes thought of what voices *are not* presented in our mainstream news media, but 'should be'