It's possible that some of the names he called me would constitute libel. That is, if I had any community standing, which, cheerfully, I do not.
My reply follows:
Jeepers Ron. Relax.
Yes, all the Australian papers for the last ten years. If you have subscribed to NewsText, you would know that you can select a personalised list and do it with one search.
NewsText is free to subscribe to, so I hope that didn't hurt your unemployed pocket too much.
I have no idea where you got the figure of $17.50 from. Articles cost $1.75 each, but as a mother of two with only one member of our family earning money, we literally watch our pennies. So no, I didn't do an extra search to find out whether he was convicted. You asked for evidence, I provided. True, it could have been better, but I figured that people don't call the police because some guy is singing hymns at the front door.
He may not have been convicted as you say, however, he was definitely arrested. And if Gabriel Mercy is to be believed, he may have been a self proclaimed ProLifer but not one of your lot.
I care very much about the truth Ron, it's why I'm here. It's what angered me about your pamphlet in the first place.
On the subject of truth, perhaps you could answer some of my questions? No need for you to be as vindictive as you accuse me of, surely?
By the way, (will you take a personal conversation with an editor at the Herald Sun as evidence? or should I have something in writing with a wax seal?) I don't know that it's true that ProLife activity would necessarily make the front page. The letters editor told me that they didn't want to give you (ProLife movement) too much attention as it would only encourage you. That's why the leaflet news landed on page ten and they didn't allow too many letters or opinion pieces.
You may have noticed that The Age ignored you altogether.
I didn't slander anybody Ron. If the Herald Sun legal team passed it, I think I'm safe. I have more evidence for a nasty incident than you have evidence that he is a "good man". Unless you know him personally?
As for slandering a "particular ProLifer" I didn't do that either. I passed on a story told to me while mentioning no names, which is exactly what you did with your list of "abortion risks" on your leaflet. What's good for the gander...
I have at all times striven for truthful communication when writing on this blog.
You moderated out a post that I wrote to Angela correcting a mistake about the Johns Hopkins cases where my tired brain muddled a few different precedent setting cases regarding infant palliative care, and you constantly twist my words and quote me out of context.
Given your less than polite responses to me, and your refusal to back up your own claims (answer my questions - please!) it is a wonder I bother with the truth at all, as I doubt it would make the slightest difference to your attitude.
As for posting on my blog??? You can't have used your real name. I moderate out abusive trolls, just as you do, so if the letter was abusive and unconstructive it would have been deleted. Obviously I cannot undelete them to show you. The initial flood has stopped, but if I get any more I will post them as you request.
Please provide the names of two ProLifers that I have slandered along with what I accused them of. Slander has to be an untruthful oral statement about a particular person that harms their reputation. Good luck with that one.
*sigh* and as for this: "And born babies can't survive without total care either. So we can kill them too I guess. You've already said so elsewhere haven't you?"
Babies that are already born can survive under someone else's care, Ron. That's my whole point, until it can survive outside the mother it's not a separate individual baby. If the mother dies before the foetus is mature enough, no amount of prayer or wishful thinking on anybody's part will make it a baby. At twelve weeks (for example) it's not a baby, it's a part of the mother.
As for infanticide I have already said elsewhere that yes I think it is appropriate for parents to decide that in VERY SPECIFIC instances.
I am beginning to think that any dialogue is impossible. We are obviously from different worlds. This is possibly because of my atheist upbringing (I reject atheism btw, not that you asked) and secular group of friends.
I have not heard stories of regretted abortions because people I know who have had one don't regard a pre twelve week foetus as a separate conscious individual with rights. However, maybe if I had been brought up in a religious community and taught that life is sacred from conception my friends would have been different, and my feelings and any stories I heard would have been different.
Then again, I may have done bioethics and changed my mind, just as I did metaphysics and changed my mind about god. Who knows?
One thing is true. It's very difficult for people with radically different belief systems to politely converse, don't you think?
I'm going to work on some of Angela's stuff now. Brind, here we come.
Kind regards,
Emervents
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Yikes, I've reallly made Ron cross! Is this libel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Emma,
My name is Erin, I commented a couple of times on Ron's blog, but gave up when I realised just how unstable he seems to be, and how incapable of even considering other points of view. Kudos to you though, for your persistence! You're a stronger person than I.
Anyway, I just wanted to confirm what you wrote on Ron's blog about newspapers choosing to ignore the leaflets.
I work as an editorial assistant at The Age newspaper. I received one of those pamphlets on the Saturday of the weekend they were sent out. I worked the following day on the newsdesk. In the morning, one of the reporters approached the Sunday news editor, with a pamphlet in hand, suggesting it could be a possible story. He was disgusted by the falsehoods in it, and the misleading information, as well as the sneaky manner that the task was undertaken. I told him I'd received one too, and we compared where we live, to see what a wide coverage they'd done. The news editor had a look at the pamphlet, and said she might consider it for a story.
A little while later, she showed it to a reporter who worked in health for many years, and wrote many features on womens' health issues. This reporter vetoed the story, on the basis that 'I don't want to give these nutcases any attention, which is exactly what they're looking for'. The news editor agreed. They decided only to pursue the story if the actions of the group were illegal.
Anyway, I just thought I'd pass that story on, because it sits with what you were told by the Hun letter editor. Also, because I notice that on Ron's blog Gabriel Mercy is claiming the reason both newspapers didn't write about it is because those responsible refused to talk to them. In the case of The Age, at least, this is just not true.
Keep on keeping on!
-Erin
Thank you Erin, your post is appreciated more than you can possibly know! Notes of encouragement help.
When one of my local MPs called we discussed the misinformation in the pamphlet and agreed that the only way to proceed would be a court of law.
Who wants a drawn out court battle when the easy alternative is to minimise the damage by recycling the paper?
I try to do my bit by posting on Ron's blog. However, now that TellTheTruth.org.au is down (still) the only traffic he is getting is from people who were already aware of his "ProLife Forum". These people are slowly drifting away.
I think I can safely stop worrying about it soon, and my blog can return to its former incognito drop-in-the-ocean state.
My blog was only meant to be somewhere to whine about the world, maybe provide help to other children of alcoholics who find each other on blogs such as this. It was never supposed to be a source of info on how to complain about a ProLife action!
Back to thesis! Which has narrowed down considerably. It has moved from foetal pain to evolutionary necessity of phenomenal qualia with a note regarding the relevance to foetal pain at the end! :-(
People tell me that this is typical of an honours thesis - start with a big pie and end up with a slice :-)
Again, thanks for your post. I suspected The Age had a morally responsible line, now I know that it's true.
Cheers
Emma
Post a Comment