Comments

<Back to Article

  1. The tactic is to corrupt the language so that words are continually used to deceive.  for example -

    - ‘private enterprise’ , performed by publicly-listed companies using public funds such as workers’ compulsory superannuation.

    - ‘free enterprise’, funded by Federal Government Managed Investment schemes that give 100% credit to SELECTED corporate investors.  Millions more to those same corporations to plan for factories that woodchip publicly-owned native forests.

    - ‘entrepreneur’ , dimwits who simply make a buck out of gutting native forests faster than a foreign f…wit.

    - ‘Government’, a system of favours directed to big business cronies of a corrupted power elite.

    - ‘Democracy’, where you are given the choice to vote for one of two parties both of which you despise.

    - ‘Forest reserve’, no definition given.

    - ‘economic’, ANYTHING that will make a quick buck for Paul Lennon’s and John Howard’s mates.

    Posted by Global Warning  on  06/12/06  at  03:53 PM
  2. That’s funny, I do recall a certain case several years ago in which my research findings were inconvenient truths for those who wished to stop logging in a certain area, and who had entrenched a myth that a species was threatened when it wasn’t. I spent several months in and out of court defending my scientific reputation and being continually defamed by morons allied to various green activist groups as a result.  Can Dr Obendorf enlighten the house as to which side he was on in that debate?  Can he advise of any progress he may have made on the factual issues discussed in my post 10 of this thread: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/taz-and-spin/

    (He did send me an email saying he’d look into it, but that was in July and nothing further, to my knowledge, has happened!)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  07/12/06  at  10:47 AM
  3. Kevin , I’m happy to meet with you over your concerns about the Anoglypta tasmaniensis delisting that took place several years ago. For the benefit of ‘the house’ - namely Tasmanian Times readers I made a submission that did not support the delisting of this monotypic, land snail which is geographically restricted to the forests of NE Tasmania.

    But I have to say calling people by pejoratives like ‘morons’ has never been the basis for fruitful dialogue.

    Posted by David Obendorf  on  07/12/06  at  01:24 PM
  4. This is a bit rich of Dr Obendorf to be talking about thruthfulness across issues relevant to Tasmania. Dr Bonham has called him out of one issue which he evades. I have also asked him to explain his role in the devil facial tumor research program at the University, which he never has. What has he got to hide? Doesn’t this make him as bad as the ‘system’ he criticizes?

    Posted by Tomas  on  08/12/06  at  07:12 AM
  5. While I wish to thank David for his offer to meet with me about this, the information concerned is very straightforward, and I have instead emailed him about it.  I have, incidentally, also had an offer from someone with connections to Peg Putt to arrange a meeting with her over the issue.  I am definitely not interested in meeting with Peg Putt about this, or indeed in her company at all, until her false and misleading statements about the matter have been retracted on the floor of the House.  She has already been sent all the necessary information to know that she was wrong - indeed, this happened several years ago.  Why should I use up my time “meeting” with someone who has misused parliamentary privelege to falsely attack my reputation (and while interjecting at that)?  Why should such behaviour be dignified with any civil response?

    David may feel that calling people “morons” isn’t the basis for fruitful dialogue.  Well David, nor is defaming people.  Would David have preferred that instead of the odd flame or fifty in the direction of certain activist bodies, I had instead immediately sued them for defamation, giving them no opportunity to print corrections from me, without doubt taking them down to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars plus costs? It is my sole lasting regret from the saga that I did not do this, and teach those concerned an even bigger lesson than I hope I have done with my subsequently heightened public criticisms of the unscientific behaviour of far too much of their movement.

    Incidentally, while from a personal point of view it is tempting to simply drop matters concerning the Anoglypta launcestonensis [not “tasmaniensis”] delisting controversy, which is now several years in the past, my concern is that if I do this then those responsible may not have yet fully mended their ways, and may yet damage the reputation of others in similar fashions.  Therefore, all the culprits shall continue to be reminded of their failings until such time as they have publicly admitted to them.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  08/12/06  at  11:54 AM
  6. David - still waiting for you to disclose your inconvenient truths

    Posted by Tomas  on  10/12/06  at  09:43 AM
  7. It’s now about a month since I raised this issue with Dr Obendorf on this thread.  Having emailed the relevant details to him he could have seen for himself that there was indeed a major discrepancy between my report and his submission’s claims about my report, in particular his false claim that the data set in my 1996 report does not distinguish between numbers of live and dead specimens.  With both his submission and my report in front of him he could have seen within minutes that his claim (which most likely led to me being professionally vilified on the floor of the House by the Tasmanian Greens MHA for Denison) was a straightforward error.

    Since raising this matter I have received no acknowledgment from Dr Obendorf that he is in error, and no agreement from him to advise Peg Putt that he was in error.  All I have received is invitations to completely unnecessary meetings and telephone calls about the matter, which I have declined.

    Unless there is progress on this matter very shortly I shall conclude permanently and correctly that Dr Obendorf is only on the side of inconvenient truths where it suits his political biases to be so.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  06/01/07  at  04:15 PM
  8. I am also waiting for Dr Obendorf to disclose his links to the devil facial tumor research - funny, all for openness unless he is involved. What inconvenient truths could he be hiding?

    Posted by Tomas  on  06/01/07  at  09:46 PM
  9. BONHAM IS ALL GODDAMN TALK !
                D.D.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  07/01/07  at  06:38 PM
  10. Don - are you trying to SHOUT at us with the CAPS on? But just on a point of order - I suspect Bonham is actually doing stuff ‘in the field’ related to Tasmanian excology, so, he may be doing more than just talking.

    Posted by Tomas  on  08/01/07  at  08:27 AM
  11. Once again particular relevant comments about bonham have been deleted and condensed to e.g. Post(9)
      I would appreciate an explanation please Linz, surely cencoreship is not about to raise its ugly head here on what has been muted as an open forum ?
    and i am tempted to ask ,does bonham have access to postings of others before print ?
                      d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  08/01/07  at  08:40 AM
  12. Don - I suspect the post (9) has been edited as it might have been a bit too rough. I know that it is a struggle sometimes to keep focussed on what a thread is about, but don’t fall into the trap of pursuing your opponents out of pure hostility unless it is on the substance of their contribution.

    On the latest posts from myself and Bonham, it is all about whether Dr Obendorf will come clean on some inconvenient truths (or not).

    Posted by Tomas  on  08/01/07  at  10:13 AM
  13. My comments were not directed to tomas, who insists upon being bonhams mouthpiece , but to our editor linz who to my knowledge is not tomas ! although, an interesting scenario ! and no ! the comments made were not rough ! but directly related to why bonham has resurrected this particular thread which once more leads me to ponder as to just who is in control of proceedings.
                        d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  08/01/07  at  12:09 PM
  14. Don (#11), I don’t see why you bother asking such questions since you don’t appear to believe the answers anyway, but no, I don’t have access to the postings of others before print.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  08/01/07  at  01:52 PM
  15. Tomas, handmaiden of Bonhmam and luxuriously anonymous pack dog, perhaps before you start gettin all uppity and hairy chested about disclosure from Dr Obendorf you might first come clean on those references to the international journals and the articles therein that you “the great internationally bragged that you were published in.
    We been waiting a while now Tomas. Where are they? If you cant produce them, then what right do you have to be demanding disclosure from others? Tomas are you just as bigger sham as you appear?

    Posted by Rick Pilkington  on  08/01/07  at  08:27 PM
  16. Don (#13) I resurrected this thread because I wanted to draw to public attention Dr Obendorf’s failure to resolve an issue on which he is clearly in the wrong in a timely matter, which in turn is relevant to the question of whether his article is a consistent personal statement, or just something he believes in for some issues but not others.  Anything else I can help you with today?

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  08/01/07  at  09:04 PM
  17. post (14)
      Interesting that bonham say,s quote: “i don,t know why you bother to ask Questions as you don,t appear to believe the answers anyway “!  end Quote!  in my defence,  i made a reference in an earlier post that in my opinion bonham , tomas and herbert ,were all one and the same !  but a contact from linz assured me that this was not so, however since that episode certain information came my way from a Hobart source ,stating that it was indeed the case which prompted me to share said information with a fellow launcestonian poster who may wish to remain apart from this at present ,and which also fired me into my earlier belief, however bonham it appears (by the affore- mentioned quote) now appears to be in reciept of this information ! curiouser, and curiouser, also still waiting for the eagle, 1080 retraction !
      I would also wish to make perfectly clear that i am not adverse to some levity and good old Australian sledging but when attacked as in fact i was when relating an incident whereas a lady emailed me regarding her husbands “tongue in cheek” statement regarding bohams verbal attack upon her, bonham,s reaction was to accuse me of inflaming violence.
      He may get away with it with others ,however unless our esteemed editor see,s fit to bar me from these proceedings i will continue to take bonham to task whenever it is deemed appropriate as have many others at this point in time.
                d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  08/01/07  at  09:34 PM
  18. Rick - I didn’t post the article about truthfulness, David did. I was just asking for David to come clean about activities on what one of the most closeted and topical areas of research in Tasmania. Why is he so quiet on his involvement? What is being hidden?

    As for my quals, don’t concern yourself my fellow. All those strange words in my papers associated with cell signalling, apoptosis, RNA, neoplasia, caspases etc may be a bit much to digest. Also, I have my corporate clients to think of, who would not want to be drawn into any web site discussion boards. One of my areas of interest are in ‘small interfering antisense molecules’ which could describe a number of TT posters!

    Posted by Tomas  on  09/01/07  at  07:39 AM
  19. post(16)
          bonhams statement(16) is irrelevant as it relates to my posting (9) which for some reason as yet not unexplained was deemed (for some reason ) not worthy of print) and censored ! as i said, before curiouser ,curiouser !
                      d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  09/01/07  at  08:13 AM
  20. Nothing doing DON, you’re off on your (!) ravings about me being other posters again, this time with imaginary friends who supposedly back you up, so I shall put you back on ignore for a while.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  09/01/07  at  01:43 PM
  21. Oh Tomas, smite down am I by the intensity of your wit and sarcasm. oooh Tomas you are simply tewiffic and bwilliant and i am in awe of your bigness and cweverness.
    Something you do need to think about before you go nigh nighs. The price you will always pay for the luxury (you now enjoy) of remaining anonymous is that you diqualify yourself morally from pontificating about others “having something to hide”, or about others disclosing links to research (you especially might want stay away from that one in light of your inability to disclose your own references- We are still waiting Tomas). Why Tomas, because you my friend will not even sign your real name to your work, something which David Obendorf has always done. Let the real people who have the courage to take responsibility for the work ask the hard questions of David.
    Who the hell are you really Tomas, Bruce, Kevin, John or whatever your name is?
    Who do you work for? Who is paying you or putting you up to all the nonsense you post here? Remember Tomas, you trade away the moral authority to demand transparency from others when you choose to live and snipe from the shadows.

    Posted by Rick Pilkington  on  09/01/07  at  09:58 PM
  22. Rick - I am humbled by your interest in me. I am a Tasmanian-born, ex-US university professor (still holding adjunct positions at 2 Universities) and cancer/cell biology researcher who now works privately as a consultant to governments (not the Tas one - they haven’t a clue) as well as biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms. I moved back to Tasmania some years back so that my children can enjoy the benefits of growing up in a beautiful and safe place. I don’t use my real name for commercial reasons but do enjoy the cut and thrust.

    That Dr Obendorf puts his name to his pieces is an admirable thing but then that exposes him to potential criticism when he doesn’t come clean on related issues, while preaching openess and transparency to others. While posting to other threads, he still hasn’t responded to Dr Bonham’s or my quite reasonable requests. I have no criticism of Dr Oberndorf from a professional point of view - I am sure that he does quite fine work - but he needs to examine his own inconvenient truths.

    Posted by Tomas  on  10/01/07  at  07:19 AM
  23. (1)  EVERYTHING THAT TOMAS HAS STATED POST (22)IS UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT !
      (2)  IN THE PREVIOUS THREAD HE CLAIMS TO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN , WITH HIS USE OF ANOTHERS NAME EVEN THOUGH THEY POST ANOMONOUSLY, ALL THIS APPARENTLY WITH THE EDITORS SANCTION, UNLESS OF COURSE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON THE PART OF LINZ.
      (3) SHOULD INFORMATION HAVING COME MY WAY AND DULY FOUND TO BE RELIABLE ,I ASSUME TOMAS HAS NO QUALMS IN HAVING HIS IDENTITY MADE PUBLIC.
                            D.D.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  10/01/07  at  05:03 PM
  24. Don - 1. So test me. My knowledge of cancer biology is unrivalled in this state. As is my knowledge of biotech/pharm.
    2. The CAPS shouting is making my eyes ache. Of course the Editor is on my dark and sinister world-wide conspiracy that has Mr Davey as its focus.
    3. Be my guest, but I think it is beyond you

    and 4. what has this to do with the actual discussion?

    Posted by Tomas  on  10/01/07  at  09:41 PM
  25. (24)
      well, Luis ! (i’m sorry, “tomas” wasn,t it ?)
    I,m not in the least interested in who ,what, or where you are ! my only concern apart from stopping this bloody mill is to how one human being treat’s another, hopefully with respect!
      Last night i recieved a personal email berating me for my lack of experience and or grammatical mistakes which in all likelyhood is true to some extent, however it appears that the majority of posters here are decent folk and have chosen to put up with that apparent malady (allow me to add that i am also dyslexic) which can be inhibiting and time consuming in actually posting at all.
      He went on to add that he! had had enough and that from now on, he! would be attacking me on my style publicly (christ!now where are the valium!)  a form of behaviour i would expect from the likes of you! ,bonham, herbert and the like, with that what can i say ? but, BRING IT ON JASON LOVELL !
      A copy of the offensive e.mail has been forwarded on to our esteemed editor as proof of what i say, as in the past i have been accused of fabrication by of course the usual suspects who will it seems , will increas by one (as of this time) but hey ! i may be getting on (just a little mind you) but when the likes of these weasels get me down will be my time to check out.
      I originally came here for one thing only and that was to stop this bloody mill and despite these bastards i reckon we’ve got half a chance if one can believe todays paper’s.
      Heres to a clean ,green, non polluted Tasmania! and when we win ,let’s take it to the world.
            have a nice day !
                        d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  12/01/07  at  07:59 AM
  26. Don, I made it clear that your style of writing, grammar and esp your lack of understandable punctuation makes your posts incredibly difficult to wade through. Like Geoff Rollins’ with another poster, many of efforts make me want to poke my own eyes out with a fork.  Really mate, trying to read your stuff hurts my brain.

    I did not accuse you of fabrication.

    I did note that you probably had your own reasons for the presentation of your words. Now that I know what that reason is I am sympathetic. But there are ways around these sorts of problems, such as a friend to edit your work, which I have already suggested to you.

    That suggestion (and others) were genuine advice as to how you might remedy the issues that your writing suffers from.  If you think that was offensive, then that’s your opinion.

    I also made it clear that your words are not the problem, its the presentation leading to difficulty in reading your work, leading to people ignoring what you write because its too damn hard to read, leading to me asking “what’s the point of posting so often when people won’t read them”?

    I really think you need to calm down a bit Don, but that’s just my opinion - like you I’m allowed to have one and just like you I’m not afraid to share it around.

    Regards,
    Jason Lovell

    PS I have forwarded your comment to my dominatrix ... and you’re in big trouble Davey-boy!

    PPS The above posting #25 is more readable already. Thanks for the effort :)

    Posted by Jason Lovell  on  12/01/07  at  09:50 AM
  27. Don - I for one enjoy many of your posts, except when you have the CAPS on and then I feel you are shouting at me. I am also guilty of the odd typo and admit laziness in checking my posts thoroughly for sentence construction, grammar etc. I do think you may be a bit over-sensitive with regards to some posters and going after the same guys time and time again without reference to the initial thread (as we are now) is a little untidy. Finally, I can assure you I am not posting here under any other names. I do like being called ‘Luis’ though - sounds pretty cool.

    Posted by Tomas  on  12/01/07  at  10:38 AM
  28. tomas !
            It may appear that i go after a certain individual, however that should be seen in the context that all posts are not printed as in the case of post (9) which was cut from a reasonably large poster to those few words and methinks Linz may have been just a little playfull in that regard as it served no purpose at all to print just those few words without the explanation for them !
            And why would i go after a certain individual ? well ! as for yourself and Bonham           you are both attack dog’s who run for cover or another thread when taken to task over any issue beyond your explaining.
            Herbert is just a sad case i’m afraid!

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  12/01/07  at  04:54 PM
  29. post (26)  “really don ! reading your stuff hurts my brain well Jason ! do as does bonham ! or so he say’s ! don’t read e’m ! pretty simple really , they may not be the neatest however you are the only one complaining ,except of course the usual suspects, also i believe you should brush up on your reading skills as i didn’t accuse you , of accusing me of fabrication.
    o.k.!  as for the dominatrix ! you’ve lost me on that one ! (although i wouldn,t mind a little of that sort of trouble)  thing is ! i’ve forgotten just who ties up who !  let’s see! left over right, then right————-nah! right over le————ah! stuff it!
                    d.d

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  12/01/07  at  09:59 PM
  30. This particular site seems to have taken on a project of self destruction.

    Better for all to get back to the facts that will assist Tasmania, rather than transmit attempts at personal point scoring.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/01/07  at  06:43 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.