Comments on: Let him who is without grubbiness cast the first stone

By: Open thread May 24-28 – Pure Poison

Open thread May 24-28 – Pure Poison — Sun, 23 May 2010 23:42:18 +0000

...] last week decrying the “grubby, low-rent, low-road” approach of Labor and their alleged accomplice, Laurie Oakes, the esteemed Glenn Milne has devoted [...

By: RobJ

RobJ — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:16:19 +0000

Just because Latham is bitter and twisted doesn’t make him wrong. I for one liked his policies, his personality? not so much, but I don’t think what he says/writes should be dismissed on the basis of his obvious character traits.

As far as I’m concerned Latham at least represented those of us on the left. Rudd? Why isn’t he in the Liberal party??? He hasn’t got a left wing bone in his body, he’s conservative in every facet, especially when he appeals to the idiots (like when he was slagging off not only Henson, but the model he photographed)

By: Friday’s Lovechild #3 « Groupthink

Friday’s Lovechild #3 « Groupthink — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:28:51 +0000

...] because Idlaviv asked so nicely, here’s the delightful and always relevant Glenn [...

By: GavinM

GavinM — Thu, 20 May 2010 05:46:40 +0000

He has attempted to discount my post and smear me as a desperate conservative — neither of which I am, I’m just not as left-wing as he is – by inferring that Latham is an unreliable source in this case — he should back that up with some evidence or withdraw it.

To answer your question, and to perhaps give him a clue on where to start — perhaps he could point to a reference to a libel case for going to print with the allegation or a denial of it made by either Oakes or Rudd.

By: PeeBee

PeeBee — Thu, 20 May 2010 04:59:32 +0000

GavinM,

One thing I have been pondering since I wrote the last post, was how do you actually prove that something DIDN’T happen ie show me your evidence that Latham was lying about Rudd leaking information to Oakes. Meaning (I think) Q thinks Rudd didn’t leak stuff. I think that would be impossible to prove.

When something DOESN’T happen, it doesn’t leave a lot of evidence around that you could point to say here is proof that it didn’t happen.

Does this make sense?

By: GavinM

GavinM — Thu, 20 May 2010 03:30:56 +0000

Peebee,

He is inferring that Latham is an unreliable source thus he is attempting to invalidate the quote that I posted — it is therefore up to Quantize to prove that Latham didn’t tell the truth in that diary entry.

Normally I’d agree on Latham, but as I said previously, I highly doubt that an accusation such as that would be published if it wasn’t true because of the possibility of legal action against the publishers and the author.

By: PeeBee

PeeBee — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:29:54 +0000

GavinM, Quantise didn’t make that claim. So why do you think he should provide evidence of something he hasn’t said?

By: GavinM

GavinM — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:08:09 +0000

“I love it when conservatives are so desperate they quote Latham.”

I love it when someone criticises a source but can’t actually offer anything to rebut it — show me your evidence that Latham was lying about Rudd leaking information to Oakes, Quantise.

By: confessions

confessions — Wed, 19 May 2010 14:55:31 +0000

pedro @ 23:

Two or three days is not enough time for a transaction to hit the PUBLIC record. Go on. Buy a share, even a $1.32 one, and get back to me when you realise how the system works. K?

pedro @ 31:

I said the paperwork wouldn’t even have been in the overnight bag out of Canberra by the time the transaction was leaked.

Oh dear. Still struggling with that word ‘disclosure’.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Wed, 19 May 2010 13:13:05 +0000

Quantize? I know you are probably in awe and taking notes of all the big words used here, but why not take a break and drop back when you’ve dealt with the acne and can actually engage with grown-ups.