[[Iain Hall]] is [[internet celebrity|famous]] for sending out [[email]]s to "fans", which always end with a disclaimer that the email is private and must not be published. These demands are always ignored.
If you have been emailed by Iain Hall, don't hesitate to add the emails here.
John
You really are a very tedious little man. I have never done anything to you
personally and yet you seem determined to attack me at every opportunity.
Not just attacking my arguments but me personally. The former is fine but
the latter is rather childish and for some strange reason you seem to think
that I should be happy to have further comments from you on my blog. You are
not as you claimed at Grods banned by, [sic] the way but until you post something
that is honest and of some substance the moderation bin is as far as your
comments will go. However if you want to be moved from the moderation list
to the banned list just continue your present spate of personal attacks
Oh you can send me that address by return; As I said in that comment I would
act on my own behalf in any such matter[,] and even if I did get a solicitor to
contact you on my behalf[,] what makes you think that my solicitor would not
reveal who you are to me, his client?
This email is private correspondence and it may not be published in any way,
without my express permission, either as a whole or in part or paraphrase.
Iain Hall
-----
John
If you wanted to use my photo did it ever occur to you to actually ask for
permission? If you want to replace your doctored image with one hot linked
to my original I would have no objection. What I do object to is the
misrepresentations in your” thought bubbles”. So here is the deal[.] I will
give you permission to hotlink to my picture for the piece at Random
Brainwave and the one at Grods but if you want to use it again you have to
seek my permission to do so.Can I be fairer than that?
Now I am sure that Scott will rave long and hard about the fact that I” hot
link” to most of the images I use on my blog and as such I am actually not
republishing them at all and so there is no issue of copyright violation.
Now to the issue of an address for service
Did I actually say that I was going to sue you?
That aside I would definitely need both your full name and your address to
take any action in the courts. I think we can definitely say that your bluff
and bluster and sue me taunts are well and truly exposed as meaningless piss
and vinegar and your cowardice is beyond doubt. I have had enough of the
flame wars to last me a lifetime so why don’t try picking some one else as
your conservative whipping boy? There are lots of bloggers out there who
make me look like some sort of radical leftist by comparison But if you
persist with the same sort of crap as you have been producing lately all you
will succeed in doing is increasing my readership. You would be surprised by
how many referrals I get from both your blog ad [sic] from Grods at present.
Strange as it may seem to you[,] I am not such a bad fellow[,] nor am I as
precious about having people disagreeing with my viewpoints. In fact I
welcome real debate on any issue[.] Perhaps you should think about doing the same.
Iain hall
------
John's response to Iain:
“So here is the deal I will
give you permission to hotlink to my picture for the piece at Random
Brainwave and the one at Grods but if you want to use it again you have to
seek my permission to do so.Can I be fairer than that?”
No deal. Here is my deal. I will use the images when I see fit and you will deal with it.
John
----
'''==
26/10/2007
Hap
You will realise by now that I am most tenacious when it comes to defending myself against the sort of aspersions that you so flippantly make in your blog. But I am not the only person you have grossly offended here, all for a very cheap shot.
Remove the vile slur from the text of your post, I won't expect an apology because you don't have the honour for it to mean anything , and we can all move on to far more important matters of political discourse. But know this should you fail to do the right thing here I am not going to let this matter drop. You will be pursued wherever you go using this blogging identity and when your real identity is discovered, as it will be, you will be named and shamed. There is a line, in even the most heated political debate, that should never be crossed and you sir have crossed that line.
Iain Hall
30/9/2007
Hap
Contrary your assertions over at Grods, the policeman that I spoke to from the Queensland Cyber Crimes Unit was most supportive of my concerns about Bourbon boy's harassment and threats and there was clearly no issue about state borders when it comes to such matters.
You have sought to imply that there is a dark and nefarious reason that I have archived my earlier posts. But if this were so why would I offer you access to the blog in question as I did just recently? There is only one condition and that is that you give me an undertaking that you will not to copy and republish any of my copyright material.
The facts are far more prosaic; I have been trying for nearly a year now to move on from those battles of the past. To this end I have brokered some sort of accommodation with the both Jeremy Sear and Mikey Capital, I have made some rather big concessions in the process. It is the he bit players in that drama have refused to let me be and I have demonstrated that I will, quite rightly, show them no mercy. For instance The Troll who called herself "Janine Aussie" Posted a copy of my picture of a friend’s son near his dads car with suggestions that I was a paedophile. That sort of tactic has absolutely no place in any kind of political debate. And she no longer harasses me.
When it comes to Sear, if you take up my offer to read from my archive, you will see that I may have been sarcastic and critical of his opinions but at no time did I ever say that Jeremy Sear was anything less than an honest and honourable man. There is however one thing that you should realise about our learned friend and that is that he did not start out posting as "Anonymous Lefty” His first blog was called "Melbourne lefty" and he was not so precious about posting either his personal details nor his own photo (which is how I got it from a google cache). It was only after he was indiscrete about things that were going on in the law firm he then worked for that he was forced, by him employer, to delete his "Melbourne lefty blog" low and behold he then started his current blog with a post begging for discretion from some of his blogging mates and tried to claim anonymity. As Tim Blair once remarked it is this aspect of Jeremy’s blogging history that made his song and dance about his "right" to anonymity so ludicrous. Read my archive and you will see the whole story.
You yourself may well hate my politics and be prepared to denounce me for them (that feeling is entirely mutual) but I am prepared to accept that as just political arguments.
Bourbon boy does not seem to have any political position except hating me and when he does things like publish pictures of the school that he thinks my daughter attends (which I see as an implicit threat to her safety) you think that I should just shrug it off? I bet if you had children of your own you would not be so sanguine about such things.
Cheers
Iain
PS I updated my burning tyroll post to include a link to the relevent Queensland law that covers bourbon boy's harrasment if you are interested.
Disclaimer
This is private correspondence and it is not to be published in whole or in part in any form or media with out my express permission
THR's response:
Thanks for your email.
I don't believe that my opinions have been formed from 'ignorance and hearsay'. As I recall, you spread Sear's details far and wide across the Australian blogosphere.
I will consider your offer of reading the archives, though there is obviously no way of ascertaining whether those archives have been altered by now. Boltwatch would have had plenty of incriminating material, however, the old comments are apparently no longer available. In any case, there is evidence all over the internet of you various flame wars, which have included you referring to Mikey as 'fat', and threatening to contact his employer. Since these facts are readily available, I don't think you can fairly claim that I am ignorant.
I think you overexaggerate BB's actions. He's done little more than you yourself have done to others. I'd be very surprised if police could do anything much about his blog, especially since your address is no longer on his site (as far as I am aware). He could well say that he (or others) deduced your details from your own self-disclosures, which is the same defence you use in relation to your conduct with Sear.
Finally, my 'integrity' is not at issue here. I'd take a far more sympathetic view of your plight if you distanced yourself from the proto-fascist bigots (AWH, and others) calling for violence against Muslims and anybody else who disagrees with them. These guys are not 'conservative' or 'libertarian'. Catallaxy or Mark Richardson are conservative or libertarian. These guys are would brownshirsts - bigoted little thugs, whose conduct makes BB's seem trivial in comparison. When you disendorse AWH and distance yourself from their race-baiting and hate-filled rants, then I may be more inclined to condemn BB for his excesses. In the meantime, I will oppose all those who lend their support to fascists, by any tactics necessary. If this means that you receive more embarassment at the hands of BB and his supposed 'stalking', then so be it.
Cheers,
THR.
Hall's counter-response:
Hap,
you seriously disappoint me, at the very least you should be willing to consider my side of the story, something that you seem incapable of. Instead you are still happy to judge and condemn me from hearsay and ignorance. None the less my offer stands.
I doubt the sincerity of your claims when your carry on like a presumptuous twat, make assumptions about whether I have children, or my marital status or the like.
Any assumptions that I may have made about you personally in private correspondence are nothing of consequence and you are welcome to tell me that they are wrong or to say nothing about your self. Remember that the topic of that correspondence is not some abstract matter, but my life, so tell me why it is wrong for me to point out that being a parent makes a difference in how we perceive things when it comes to the safety of our children?
I notice, from your comment there, that you have read Jeremy's latest post about personal details being published. Now despite all of the acrimony between us I would never do that to him (despite his having far less scruples about doing so himself), even though I have know Jeremy's home address for quite some time. However your blogging friend Bourbon boy has repeatedly published my address, my home phone number, my mobile number, Yet you cheer him on, Can you see that there is a moral problem for you in supporting such things? Because commenting there and showing any support for his actions makes you a hypocrite in the light of your comment at Jeremy’s blog. When it comes down to it if you are the man of lofty principle as you claim then you should perhaps consider more carefully just who you lend support to on the Internet. Because when you lie down with dogs you inevitably get fleas, and there is no more flea-ridden dog than Bourbon boy.
From his backpedaling over Grods I think that it is pretty clear that bourbon boy has over played his hand; both Bridgit Gread and Bruce Everett and now distancing themselves from Bourbon boy and his harassment of me and Everett is even making my case that Bourbon boy's action clearly constitutes "stalking" under our laws. I suggest that now may be a good time for you to distance your self from him as well, while you still have some integrity left.
Cheers
Iain
PS please reply by Email as I will not discuss this with you in a public comments thread.
Disclaimer
This is private correspondence and it is not to be published in whole or in part in any form or media with out my express permission.
THR's Response:
I don't really care to argue with you about your history of flame wars, except to reiterate that you gleefully spread Sear's details as far and wide as you could, despite him asking that you refrain from such behaviour.
All of this is old news. I make reference to it sometimes as you are prone to reducing every dispute to a personal level.
Furthermore, I'm not the least bit interested in your thoughts on my 'integrity' or 'ethical consistency'. I accept that BB makes some hurtful remarks about you, and he did, in the past, reveal your details and what not. This is the extent of his actions. The AWH crew, on the other hand, openly call for violence against Muslims. This is in a country where, only a couple of years ago, likeminded thugs were beating up people on the basis of their skin colour in Cronulla. Where will your support go next? Stormfront? The Australia First Party?
You have managed to obtain an audience for your blog, largely as a result of your flame wars. Insofar as you use that audience to promote hate sites, there is nothing inconsistent in me promoting BB's ridicule site. Many of BB's posts are not personal at all, but merely attack your spelling or ideas. BB's supposed threats are nothing more than 'implicit', whereas those of AWH are fairly explicit. If you cannot see the difference, this is possibly because of your wounded pride. In any case, I have little more to add to the matter other than what I've said thus far.
Cheers,
THR.
More emails from Hall:
Hap
I am not surprised that you are so chastened by my last Email or that you have no answer to the clear inadequacy of your own morality as your equivocation and attempts at explanations have definitively demonstrated.
Nor am I surprised that you don't want to hear anything that may undermine your prejudices about me and my blogging history, well at least you can no longer say that I have anything to hide as I have given you the opportunity to read my side of the story.
Most amusing is your instance on tying your moral virtue to my "support" for the Guys at AWH, a support that has never been unequivocal or without qualification in any case. But then you have on many occasions offered views that support the Jihadists, Palestinian terrorists, or any vaguely anti- western cause. You see I am an old school moralist who does not make his moral virtue contingent upon anything or reserve it only for those I deem to be "worthy". How does it feel to be so morally flexible that you have no principles at all?
The Cronulla riots were without doubt a very ugly stain on our history but unlike you I don't see it as a case just one side being entirely to blame. The way that you are so keen to ignore the clear provocations and bad behavior of some people of Lebanese extraction in those events suggests that once again you have let your own prejudices colour your judgment to the extent that you have no chance of having any kind of balance in your opinions of those events. Yet you seek to use the slur that my opinions are one sided and consistent with "storm front" or the "Australia First Party" This is one of the best Pot calling the Kettle black moments I have seen for a while.
I am beginning to suspect that you must be a follower of Mohammad yourself from your one eyed anti western views and your claimed offence at some of the Anti Muslim Hyperbole at AWH because I don't see any approbation for the calls from Osama BL et al who exhibit hate on a level that makes even the most blatant transgression of AWH seem like a love fest. So lets for just one-minute compare the "threat" posed by the hyperbole at AWH with the nutters who are actually on trial here for plotting Jihadist terror. Who is it that wants to make and detonate the bombs? Who is it that has actually done more than mouth off? And finally who is that you constantly denounce? Another example of your moral flexibility I think because I have not seen even one word written by you denouncing those who would actually do harm here ore elsewhere. No instead you rile against a group of blokes who see the threat from the Jihadists and the faith that inspires them and advocate a strong response to such threats. The AWH guys are not advocating genocide as the Jihadists are, they are not saying accept what we believe or die, but they do say (and I do support this aspect of their writing) that when faced with an enemy that will accept only victory or death that we should be prepared to give them the later.
To Quote Peter Garret" better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" but You would have us all on our knees.
Were I a believer in god I would be saying, at this point, that you have sold your soul for some thing of very little consequence. But that is the story of the far left isn’t it?
Yes I have got an audience for my blog and I have actually worked at building it up not through ‘flame wars” as you suggest but by writing a lively page that seeks to engage in debate. I make no apology for taking on the likes of you and your fellow lefties. There is after all no point in just addressing the like minded which I see so many of your ilk confine themselves to. That is the easy option but it is also pretty pointless.
I love the way that you are willing to dismiss the clear malice of BB as being merely implicit threats but you are just as willing to denounce any implication of threat that Mikey may have perceived as an act of unmitigated evil. This is yet another example of your own moral flexibility that amounts to a total lack of morals on your part.
Well I will leave our correspondence at this point with just one more thought, and that is for as long as you are willing to offer comfort and support to BB then you can expect that your own writing will be a subject of some scrutiny from me, and I don’t intend to take any prisoners in the way that I do it either.
Cheers
Iain
Disclaimer
This is private correspondence and it is not to be published in whole or in part in any form or media with out my express permission.
THR's Final Response:
Hall,
It is hilarious that you think you've 'chastened' anybody or that you think your moral judgements are something any sane person would lose sleep over.
You continue to argue dishonestly and attribute to me the products of your imagination. Please find a single instance of me supporting Jihad, or bin Laden. I (and Madd McColl) have provided several instances of the AWH crew calling for Arabs and Muslims to be wiped out.
For as long as you continue to lend your voice to the fascist chorus, you will thoroughly deserve the skewerings you receive.
I have no problem with you subjecting my writings to 'scrutiny'. If the likes of you disagree with me, I take it as a compliment.
Cheers.
[[Category:Transcripts]]