Comments on: A Bizarre 24 Hours, and Blasts From the Past – More on Windschuttle

By: Margaret Simons

Margaret Simons — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:04:26 +0000

Thank you fredex.

By: fredex

fredex — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:20:16 +0000

Sometimes I’m slow.
I never connected this blog and you the author Margaret Simons with the book “Meeting of the Waters” which sits on my bookshelf.
Congratulations on a book that needed to be written.

By: gawain

gawain — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:20:46 +0000

Thanks Margaret for exposing this naughty hoax and explaining clearly what Mr. Windschuttle replies to you have been.
I must say I’m surprised that Mr. Windschuttle did not thank you profusely for bringing it to his attention. Imagine if you’d said nothing and some overseas newspaper picked it up and it went all around the world! Gosh he’d look double plus stupid wouldn’t he?
Now that it’s been nipped in the bud I’m sure nobody overseas will care. Mmm -I bet that’s what Mr. Windshuttle is hoping too. It’s a pity he chose to bring your 2003 book up, as it just clouds the issue at hand. It’s not a good modus operandi for anyone wishing to be seen as a clear-headed and sharp-sighted. In fact it paints the rather opposite picture of a muddle-headed academic with his eye off the ball and his mind on lost past battles. This may have been the very problem that resulted in Mr. Windschuttle publishing Ms Wilson’s article.
Mr andygeorge you seem a little TOO hot under the collar. Maybe you should wear a tank-top. I mean -comparing a sweet prank published in a little-read zine to murder.
Next thing you’ll hear a fart on a tram and think a bomb has gone off! Puh-lease. And when is laughter hate? Oh yes that’s right -in Orwell’s ‘1984′

By: andy george

andy george — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:45:35 +0000

Re the fraud perpetrated on Keith Windschuttle and Quadrant here’s my assessment, to counter the perfervid lefty analysis of Margaret Simons and the Crikey gang.

1. Looking at the fraudulent article it looks to me like the fraudster went to a lot of trouble to confect this bonbon. So I’m not sure if many editors of journals would have checked every citation to uncover the lie buried deep within. Would the ABC? Would Crikey with its myriad suspect contributors spouting their partial points of view? Did the climate change errors perpetrated by Hanson get checked before publication such as the recent temperature fraud/error re Russian temperatures, late in 2008?
2. Here Simons/Crikey et al are gloating over a fraud perpetrated against a target and taking the sides of the fraudster. Is Simons a supporter of Norma Khoury, Helen Demidenko’s fictional perpetration, or perhaps of Bernard Madoff or the Project Wickenby tax avoiders who falsify their records to evade tax? Is Simons a supporter of crimes generally or only against “people not like us.”
3. The ethics of this stinks from a journalistic sense also. Would a journalist with knowing of an upcoming murder, or a Bernard Madoff scam, or Bilal Skaf’s plans that day in Sydney, wait until it’s done to respect the source? Would Simon s hold back an expose of Tony Mokbel or HIH or Skase to enjoy it being perpetrated?
4. I think that Windschuttle should take comfort from this. After all he exposed the scientific frauds perpetrated by various famous historians in the aboriginal genocide fraud. This should if anything confirm his desire to expose fraud and confirm that we are all disadvantaged by fraud. It should also teach him to have a science editor to head off such frauds.
5. Re the reports of Robert Manne laughing about this, nothing would surpriser me from that bilious hating quarter.

So, Simons and Crikey, sit down and think about the larger issues involved before you get moist and hot about the pleasure you’ve just had watching an assisting in an unethical act.

By: Tim Burrowes - MuMbrella

Tim Burrowes - MuMbrella — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:51:13 +0000

Fair point. Having once been hoaxed myself (and learning about it the day before we hit the streets), in some ways, it makes life easier for the editor to only find out afterwards. It saves a lot of stress on having to decide whether to pulp and reprint!

By: Margaret Simons

Margaret Simons — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:02:18 +0000

Hi Tim, No, its not up there with the US election, and I do think that is a relevant factor. Also, my holding off did not change the outcome of the hoax. Windschuttle had already accepted the article and Quadrant was on its way to the printers when I found out about it. The only thing my decision affected was how and when the fact of the hoax was publicised. Had my holding off been likely to affect the course of events, the ethical issues would have been diffferent and I think my decision would have been different. The hoaxer wanted me to hold off until Quadrant was out. I agreed to receive the information on that basis – but with the understanding that we would publish as soon as possible after that. And all this was my decision, not Jonathan’s, although I don’t think he disagrees with my reasoning. He is well able to speak for himself.

By: Tim Burrowes - MuMbrella

Tim Burrowes - MuMbrella — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:30:52 +0000

I know this isn’t quite up there with the US election in terms of importance, but I am curious if the decision to hold off for three weeks was yours alone or that of Crikey editor Jonathan Green?

I ask, because last year he was rather disapproving of Newsweek’s decision to honour its (similar) commitments to keep details of behind-the-scenes access to Sarah Palin off the record until after the election. The link is here: http://tinyurl.com/9ompdj .

At the time he observed: “That’s not a decision that any journalist worth their salt should take.” He added that if breaking a promise led to ostracism or opprobium for the journalist, “that is a price the ought in any conscience be paid for revealing the truth.”

As it happens, I don’t agree. You made a commitment, and kept your word – that’s what journalists do, and is the only professional thing to do. I wonder if Jonathan has changed his mind about that now too?

Cheers,

Tim

By: delperro

delperro — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:48:39 +0000

Give us more, give this more news time PUHHHLEEEAAASSSSEEEE!