November 2007 - Iain continuing his stalking of Bruce Everett

I've been watching a thread over at a blog called Grodscorp ever since The Editor made a comment on the introductory entry in this blog. There has been a rather disturbing development in a heated conversation between Iain Hall and his intended stalkee, Bruce Everett.

I won't reproduce it here for two reasons. Firstly, it is very long. Secondly, because the conversation is not being hosted by Iain Hall it doesn't suffer the risk of being hidden away. The conversation can be found on this entry and to summarise, there are a few points worthy of note.

• Everett is not kind to Iain's arguments.
• Everett becomes unkind to Iain's character, even acerbic, but isn't dishonest in his criticism.
• Everett makes fun of Iain when Iain errs in his attempts to make accusations.
• Everett sets up Iain with a logical trap and then ridicules Iain for failing.
  
• Iain trots off one untruth after the other, each which evidence shows to be categorically false.
• Iain accuses Bruce of religious bigotry for which not only he fails to give evidence, but he also misrepresents some of Bruce's work to try to back up his argument.
• Iain states that Bruce is struggling with his education for which he has no evidence.
• In addition to various accusations I won't go into, Iain suggests that Bruce's mention of his Father's death (which was relevant to the conversation) was a rhetorical plot to elicit sympathy. A rather tasteless suggestion that credibly Bruce denies that he would do. Iain once posted about his own father's death in 2006 and Bruce didn't take advantage of that to attack Iain.
  

The crucial matter is in what order these things happened. Was Iain provoked or was Iain attacking people he had a grudge with.

Everett claimed;

"Oh, and between you and I, this is the first personal attack,

The long litany of anti Christian pieces at your blog are pretty indicative of how you are prepared to mock any aspect of Christian belief, it is only cowardice on your part that stops you being equally critical of the followers of other faiths to the same extent." - Everett, 2007.

If this is true Iain's attacks can be catagorised as predatory. If not then in some capacity Iain can be claimed to be a victim of some sort.

Iain retorts with;

"You can’t really expect much else from some of Australia’s worst thinkers though can you?This is the first personal attack from you Everett in comment 12 and the one you quote from me is in comment 21
Need I say more? You were the first to make a personal attack on this thread not I.."
- Iain Hall, 2007.

On the face of it, this looks truthful. That Everett made the first attack. But is isn't true.

Comment 12 has Everett saying;

"Iain’s just repeating the Bolt/Meuhlenberg/Pell/Wallace/Devine/Blair line that if you criticise anti-secular politics, you are Christian bashing..." - Bruce Everett, 2007.

From that point on Everett just talks about the poor line of argument mentioned and directs nothing at Hall. His comment about "Australia's worst thinkers" was directed at "Bolt/Meuhlenberg/Pell/Wallace/Devine/Blair", not Iain Hall.

Bruce did make a personal attack, but it wasn't between him and Iain Hall. Bruce did not attack Iain Hall first and Iain is simply lying again in claiming he did.

Iain came to the conversation as the predator. Despite his protestations, he still continues his net abuse to this very day.

- Deepthroat