– LL = f ' ( JVR )

0
Hello ... and goodbye?

In the wake of news about the Supreme Tribunal’s bizarre decision saying Leopoldo López is allowed to run for president, but is not allowed to execute the office of the presidency, I’m going to share a conspiracy theory of mine. Be warned: it’s totally unfounded, but aren’t they all?

Imagine you’re a highly experienced, utterly unscrupulous macchiavelian chavista political operator, and you’re tasked by the big guy to wreak some havoc on the opposition’s primary process.

How do you play it?

You could go out and do something obvious like disqualify the front runner. But only a rookie would play it that way. The front runner is a remarkably normal guy with a weirdly normal ego. If you disqualified him he’d probably bitch and moan for a few news cycles and then accept the inevitable, bowing out in favor of the rest of the field. That doesn’t cause anything like the level of chaos you’re looking to unleash.

Instead, what you want to do is pick on the stand-out megalomaniac in the field, the guy with an ego so out of control he’ll go to extraordinary, unity-wrecking lengths to stay in the field.  And you’ll be sure to put layer on top of layer of confusing double-speak into his disqualification – even to the point of declaring he’s allowed to run, but not to win.

In other words you’ll play this in the way most likely to wreak havoc with the opposition’s unity – in a way that keeps a crippled, but not entirely disabled – charismatic candidate in the race. You’ll give him just enough rope to hang himself, and the rest of the MUD along with him.

And then you’ll stand back, popcorn in hand, and laugh as you watch the opposition struggle to climb out of the deep hole you’ve dug for it.

The point here is that they’re not targeting LL because he’s the one they’re most “scared of.” They’re using his ego as leverage in a maneuver to wreck the MUD’s primary process.

It takes a special kind of twisted genius to see clearly that this was going to work.

Which brings me back to my (totally unsubstantiated) conspiracy theory: there’s only one man who could have conjured up a scheme this wicked.

1 COMMENT

  1. Had´nt thought of it, makes perfect sense really. JVR is a freakin´evil genius, hell, if we had him in our side Chavez would be gone already… But then again, JVR is in his own side… Pure evil genius.

    As for the LL part, I agree completely, the guy is out of touch, however, he did allow Ledezma to run, hopefully he´ll understand once again, and not listen to sugardaddy Cisneros who will probably insist he run..

    • I’ll have you know Kimi is *far* too polite to wake me up at night…she softly murmurs “I’m hungry” in Kanako’s ears and she takes care of it. It’s unbelievable!

      • a miracle baby. trouble with that is that it lulls a couple into wanting to have another, only to find that the next is the demon seed. (Hope it doesn’t it happen!)

      • Ay mijito!

        You’ve been a Daddy less than a week and here you are thinking, “this ain’t as bad as they said it would be.”

        Oh man, I can’t wait for the other shoe to drop.

        • Here’s the thing:

          Boys: Joden when they are small and the jodedera diminishes as they grow up

          Girls: When they’re small, no joden. As they grow up, Joden. And the jodedera increases as they age, leading to the wise words of a good friend of mine Terry, QEPD, “Mujer que no jode es macho”.

          Flame away, ladies!

  2. I disagree. First, what LL has done is precisely yo prevent the possible inhabilitation of Capriles, Perez and Ledezma and of course, fight for his own rights. Secondly Chavez does not want LL to run so the TSJ is speaking to the NI-NIS: Do not vote for LL because if he wins it will be chaos because we will not allow him to assume the presidency. Why was LL impeded to run for la Alcaldia Mayor? It is obvious to me that this site is anti LL. What is the reason?

  3. They are just playing around with the MUD and LL super sized ego and ambitions…

    Hopefully the majority of venezuelans have already seen LL dark side and he was not going to win anyway, so not so much harm will be done. Now all Capriles has to do is insist and insist that LL is allowed to run freely… I think that Capriles will win it easily unless Maria Corina somehow catches fire

    • Jeje, the title was my idea. The subtraction of Leopoldo Lopez is derived from Jose Vicente Rangel. Or something…

      • See? The Chiguire was wrong all along. I only needed my basic knowledge on Calculus
        and my mid-tier English to get that comment.
        Did not even had to check one reference from my post-graduate lessons, I swear.

        Really Chigui, te pasas.

  4. When Chavez wanted to allow for his own perpetual re-election, it was all about how important it is that the people be allowed to choose whoever they want to be their President. Now, when they might not elect Chavez, popular sovereignty becomes inoperative.

    You are right that allowing him to run, but not take office, seems calculated to create maximum havoc within the opposition ranks.

  5. Mark my words: LL will be allowed to run right after the primaries. What more could the government ask for than an ambitious dark horse wrecking the unity ticket? They will “acatar” the verdict, but only after the unity candidate has been elected.

  6. Sounds entirely plausible. Even a team-play, I can see Escarra lending his all too malleable legal intellect to drafting the decision.

    • Escarra is precisely that, a tool, he is no genius ala JVR, the guy has a serious “complejo”, he knows a crap load about laws but ingnores it, he is definetly an “encantador de serpientes”, but the guy is a “me too”, he has little to no iniciative and he just executes what he is ordered to do. He is a big FAT joke.

  7. So… where is our JVR? Why can’t we generate chaos in chavismo? That’s sort of what I was hinting at with my post about The chatty Dr. Navarrete. Why can’t we use the uncertainty surrounding Chavez’s health to, somehow, create confusion in chavista ranks, to heighten the obvious power struggles that will come, or have already begun?

    Coño, los rusos también juegan!

    • I think the Dr. Navarrete interview (appearing in a Mexican website no Venezuelan has ever heard of) was just one part of a strategy. This ruling is another part, and Chavez has one more thing up his sleeve.
      Think about it, first we are led to believe that Chavez is definitely finite, less than 2 years, he’s toast folks! And nothing happens to the Dr. who not only treated Chavez at one point, but is the personal physician to family members, not only revealed (or claimed) that Chavez is Bi-Polar, but violated his ethical duty to STFU about a patient as well as “letting the cat out of the bag” that Chavismo has been so desperate to keep IN the bag. So, here’s this guy who really drops a bomb, and no reaction from the government even as Chavez is getting on a plane to Cuba.

      THEN, we get this wacky, convoluted, gordian decision that is sure to cause disarray in the MUD.

      What will be the third shoe to drop? I would expect a “traitor” to switch sides kind of deal, probably by Thursday, since if it’s done on Friday it loses steam in the “news cycle”.

    • The Chavista military model for the PSUV means that all internal chaos remains invisible to outsiders. Being focussed on the Supreme Comandante, they tend to implode when a transition between leaders must occur. that is when the conflicts burst into expression.

    • Juan, we don’t need a JVR, and we have the best leader any opposition could ever hope for: a galloping megalomaniac, approaching metastasis, that never, ever, shuts up or does something right. The problem that we have is a lack of leaders able to capitalise on the monumental fuck up chavismo is. There’s no one normal left in chavismo. Imagine what that statement says about us, and our “leaders”…

      As per the post in general, I disagree. It doesn’t take a particularly evil genius to have done what they did. That writing was on the wall, para todos los que tienen ojos, it was clear since before the CIDH announced its decision. As per FT customary bile against oppo leaders he doesn’t gloat about, Roberto Smith anyone?, and other comments about aggrandized egos and megalomania, well, one would have thought that fatherhood would bring a bit of maturity and dispassionate commentary, but no such luck, innit? Too early perhaps?

  8. You all should do your homework and check the news. LL is allowed to run, The CNE must accept him. This was said by LSM of the TSJ in a press conference. Globo asked her what would happen if LL is elected and she said that the TSJ could not anticipate an opinion in advance. So, the sentence is contradictory but it is like this: TSJ rejects the CIDH ruling but at the same time says LL can run but can not assume the office. Your misinformation is pathetic.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/335405/el-tsj-decreta-inejecutable-el-fallo-de-la-cidh-sobre-leopoldo-lopez/

    • ???????????

      This is the weirdest attack comment ever – chamo, did you read my lead paragraph?!

      …anyway, I know lashing out feels good. But maybe leopoldistas should spend a little more time thinking through their guy’s messiah complex. Cuz, seriously, LL has a lot going for him, but that ego is a liability.

      • My comment was not meant for the original post but for the poster that made this comment: “Mark my words: LL will be allowed to run right after the primaries” which shows a total ignorance of the stupid ruling.
        As to lashing out, it is you who is lashing out at LL. You used words like “messiah complex”, why is Capriles running? Ledezma? PP? Maria Corina? Because all of them believe that he/she is the solution. Why is LL different that you accuse him of believing him a Messiah? Your affirmation is so blatantly biased that it looks personal. From time to time you do have good posts and I liked them for the most part. This one I do not.
        As for being a leopoldist, I am not. It is only fairness what prompted me to write. I visit this blog from time to time and I have never posted. Capriles is my favorite because I believe he could win and because he has been able to build a wide coalition around him.

        • Right, so that’s why there’s a little “reply” button after each comment – if you want to reply to a specific poster you need to use it, otherwise it’s understood you’re replying to the main post.

        • It’s me you meant to reply to, so let’s get to it:

          I probably should have worded my post differently: My prediction is that LL will be granted his full political rights once the primaries are over, in order to tempt him to run as a third candidate, splitting the oppo vote. With Rangel and Escarra pulling the strings, I think such a scenario is quite likely. The question is, will Leopoldo take the bait? I hope not.

        • Verga…I didn’t know at this stage, in 2011 (i.e. in the XXI century) there were people among the opposition that would go so ballistics if someone uttered a piece of criticism about his candidate.
          Definitely: caudillismo al máximo. To that I wonder: did you get a promise for a post?

          • It’s not caudillismo. People feel passionate about certain candidates, certain people. It happens in all normal countries – countries, that is, that HAVE governments, not like countries where there is no government for a year.

          • One year and three months! Not for nothing we are in the Guiness Book of Records.
            Normal countries? You mean American countries. Juan, if you sail to the East or to the West you will find other continents.

            I try to imagine the jaladera de bolas about Angela Merkel or even Cameron…pre-election…not in the way it is done in Venezuela, man!

            By the way: in parliamentary systems, even if there is one candidate for prime minister, you still have above all the message: “vote SPD/Grünen/NVA/CD&V/etc”
            not “vote for Pedro Pérez”

          • I’m not sure about that being an exclusively American phenomenon. E.g., Margaret Thatcher, Franco, Adenauer, Olof Palme, De Gaulle, Putin, Nehru. Charisma is charisma, and when someone catches stardust, people become really passionate.

          • Juan, from all those you mentioned I would say only the only democrat that would perhaps bring such passions was Thatcher and de Gaulle…among the far right on one side and among all the rest on the other. Adenauer and Palmer? Respected, just like Helmut Kohl. But even Adenauer was more a part of a movement, the Christian Democrats with a conservative but also social programme.
            As for the others (Putin, Nehru): we are not talking about developed democracies there. In real parliamentarian systems leaders get constantly grilled and humiliated…and that is good so.

  9. It’s vital that we have primaries. With Leopoldo Lopez as a candidate in them.

    It’s also vital to make it understood that this is not a normal election. Not about H. Capriles, not about L. Lopez, not about M. Machado, not about P. Perez. Not about any party, because this will be a coalition government and the MUD includes very dissimilar ideological inclinations. That’s why most in the opposition are going along with primaries.

    Whoever gets elected candidate, gets elected because they have a better chance at fulfilling one objective: Interrupt the Chavez tyranny and begin curing the damage done to Venezuela by it, hopefully ending any possibility of their return to power.

    A government program is very necessary. But it must be very down-to-earth. Detailing how completely different things will really be from chavismo, with concrete examples if possible. What we don’t need, huge egos or personality based campaigns. Not from any of the pre-candidates.

    If you want to run on a personal platform, there’s 2018 elections. Not these. Capito?

  10. On this one Chavez is planting a seed of discord or caos in the MUD, probably thinking they will now and for many moons entertain themselves with what to do with Leopoldo chances and forget the main issue, him.

  11. Two things: first, It takes not only an evil political mastermind like JVR to pull this sort of things off. This sentence has Carlos Escarrá written all over it. Who else but the law bending expert in the PSUV ranks could write something that wicked? Second thing, we still don’t know what will LL do.

    Yes, LL rubs some people the wrong way with his caudillo-like stances, and I will not be surprise if he still runs. But it would be naive to believe that the other candidates don’t have that hunger in them. Just like Juan pointed out, a person who wants to be a president is not exactly a poster boy for humbleness. Besides, a bit of objectivity doesn’t hurt, i.e. more facts and litlle less epithets (“ego so out of control…”, “remarkably normal guy”, “weirdly normal ego”) 😉

    And one little question: is CC officially endorsing HRC? The last time I checked, it was only JC, but now it seems that FT is also praising him. Did I miss something during my holidays or is it just the regular monthly edition of “FT trash-talks LL”?

    And the title, geez. You should probably tone down the nerd jargon a bit. Politics and Math don’t mix well…

      • Hahaha. I dunno, but LL is not a derivative of JVR. His situation yes, LL no. As a dork myself, I would have gone with “Schroedinger’s cat-didate” or something like that, although that will put the blame on the quantum-esque nature of Venezuelan legalese and not the evil schemes of Grima…

  12. I thing that the original writer of the sentence, Magistrado Arcadio Delgado is very capable of coming up with this sentence on his own, plus the help he may has had from his dad, ex-Magistrado and very bright judicial and political mind, Jose Manuel Delgado Ocando, he is been the real mastermind behind all judicial chavista stuff.

    • It would be very interesting to know the face of all these SoB. I wonder if somebody is taking notes for future reference… I’m not talking about going Harry Brown on them, but just plain good ol’ impartial justice, like the one we do not have now…

  13. One addition: “even to the point of declaring he’s allowed to run – for precisely the same reason he was NOT allowed to run in another, prior electoral race – but not to win.”

    Love the title, by the way. (Except Nestor is right on the prime – should just say “f (JVR)”, as in “function of JVR”.) I understood the whole point of the post just by seeing it.

  14. The only way to turn this around is not make an issue of it. Allow LL to run and what may be, may be. If he wins it all, then he is as legitimate as can be, I cant see the TSJ saying the elected President can’t take office. And if he loses, then so be it, someone else will have the same legitimacy.

    • I sort of agree. ALL hell would break loose if LL won the primary, won the election…and then the TSJ refused to allow him to take office. High risk? Sure. But then every path forward is high risk.

      • If that were to happen, there would be no way in hell Luisa Estella Morales could prevent LL from taking office. Leopoldo could order a Russia tank to destroy her house, and he’d be right.

    • I see your point, MO, but what I can’t see is LL winning the primary with this perceived albatross hanging around his neck.

      I think there are quite a few that may have voted for him are going to change their minds and vote for someone else, given that they believe he will not have a chance against Chavez with that decision out there.

      • “I see your point, MO, but what I can’t see is LL winning the primary with this perceived albatross hanging around his neck.”

        My thoughts exactly. Let him run in the primary, he’s toast already. However, as Daniel has already written in his blog, he could end as the kingmaker. Is a venezuelan version of the Granita pact (the 1994 Blair-Brown deal) in the horizon?

      • Hey, I have no problem at all with him running. Like you said, it is (well, appears to be is a better term perhaps) a democracy. If he loses he loses, no worries. He still gets to be Kingmaker.

        Still, one thing to worry about him running: These are open primaries. Wouldn’t it be funny if he won because the PSUV members were instructed to vote for him?

        Imagine THAT scenario. So maybe his wisest course is to shut up and not run and be a ingmaker

    • MO, Do you really want to take that chance?

      With other equally qualified candidates available my view is that unless this matter is 100% clear by early January then he should step aside & throw his weight behind one of the other candidates. I wouldn’t bet the farm on what Chavismo “MIGHT” do if he won the election. Remember they said that they wouldn’t leave & that elections were not the only way to power.

  15. This site consistently bashes LL as a unity-breaking bastard when all he’s mostly done the opposite.

    When he was banned from running, he supported (and effectively transmitted his legitimacy to) Ledezma. VP has been proposing primaries from day 1 for the election of candidates, and when they have lost the primaries, they have assumed the result (which happened in San Cristobal and Baruta-Chacao-El Hatillo). In the Chacao election, primaries were held and the other candidates backed out, effectively undermining unity in the municipality. Leopoldo broke away from PJ rightfully so, after the party’s leadership got “enquistado” in power, and after a costly process, VP has gone through internal elections to legitimize their leadership.

    Of course he has aspirations, as everyone in the race. “Confusing” that with extreme megalomania and minimizing a just struggle to recover his political rights is very near to the grotesque.

    He is not going to run if he does not think he will win. Sadly, this may hinder his chances, and the Unity may be losing the most prepared and capable of all its candidates. I don’t see you saying anything about HCR appearing in his personal campaign with the shirt of the state government. I really feel you guys are pretty biased in this front.

    • Sorry but I think LL’s caudillo problem has a tad bit more to do with him storming out of not one but two opposition parties within five years and then going off to found his own Sandbox/Personal Vehicle Party where nobody has the stature to question any call his makes than it has to do with Caracas Chronicles calling him a megalomaniac now and again.

      Let’s not forget, this is a guy who first threatened to leave Primero Justicia if the party didn’t support his call to withdraw from the 2005 parliamentary elections, basically forcing his line on the party, and then…stormed out anyway!

      But yeah…it’s our fault people think he’s an egomaniac…

        • That’s a little too much, don’t you think? Everyone has their corazoncito, that doesn’t mean they’ve sold out.

          I like Leopoldo just fine, but you can’t deny he’s more a younger, better-looking version of the quintessential IV Republic politician than a true representative of the young Turks.

          • what’s with the better-looking business??
            That’s not what I want in a leader. Instead, give me the following: well-prepared, experienced, effective, team-player, persistent, and a whole lot more. Good looking? That attribute, if one could call it that, only fuels a megalomaniac who charms rather than gets down to business.
            Would I accept someone really ugly. Maybe that might take getting used to. But the opposite, a pretty Boy Floyd does not remotely interest me.

          • I must admit i’m getting tired of this “leader” thing. All I want is a good, hardworking, smart and honest employee.

          • Do you prefer presidency by committee, then?
            The reality is that someone’s got to be in the lead. And I’d like that person to have the attribuites I earlier expressed. Forgot one, thouigh: perseverence.

        • No pana, if somebody was going to do the buying it’d be LL – that’s where the money is!

          I don’t want to overdo it. LL has a lot going for him. He’s the one guy talking explicitly about CCTs as a key part of a post-Chávez policy mix. That counts for a lot with me. He’s extremely bright, and I do understand that some measure of swaggering self-confidence is a big asset for a politico.

          If he wins the primary, I’m behind him all the way.

          But we shouldn’t delude ourselves. The guy’s ego makes him a terrible team player. It’s a liability. No sense sugar-coating it.

  16. Quico,

    I agree that one of the reasons LL was chosen for elimination was that it would cause maximum damage to the opposition like you describe in your post, but this does not necessarily negate the fact that LL is also the candidate they are most afraid of. In fact they kill 2 birds with one stone – creating havoc in the opposition and eliminating the most charismatic candidate.

  17. To Folks in General,

    The most like strategy Chavez is using:

    The Supreme Court is practically inviting LL to run in the oppo primaries, although warning that it is not certain that he can be a candidate for the elections .This is a bait that LL should not take.He would be used by the government to weaken and criticize Capriles.Then LL would be disqualified from running against Chavez and his previous comments used against Capriles.

    In a normal democracy this type of situation does not cause major distortions, but with an authoritarian giant like Chavez running with practically full control of the media, any damage done to an oppo candidate can be a determining factor.

  18. Venezuela has BIG problems. Very, very big problems. The next president will need to come up with the right policies, build coalitions to get the right policies implemented, sell the policies to the public.

    There’s just a fundamental mismatch between what the moment requires and who LL is.

    It’s instructive to ask the following — what if he weren’t good-looking? What if he were chubby and bald and had funny teeth or ears? Would the ex-mayor of a small, wealthy municipality (who has left disgusted and disillusioned colleagues in his wake) be a top-tier candidate?

    • Lucía, don’t make Leopoldo sound like the Sarah Palin of Venezuelan politics, because if that’s who he is, I’m completely on his side. 🙂

    • While asking instructive questions, why don’t we start pondering as well about what do we gain by undermining those who are on our side? What do we gain by criticising lack of credentials of candidates when we know that credentials don’t make a good politico? What do we gain by adopting this preposterous and infantile “indignado” attitude of pretending to be holier than thou? Have we, the so called uber educated elite of Venezuela, not learned anything from our incipient and fraught with failure history? And more importantly, have we not learned anything about the fraught with failure history of politicians of first world nations? Is it not a self evident prophecy that good looking or not, young or not, adecos or not, copeyanos or not, chavista turncoats or not, corrupt or not, ignorant or not, ill equipped or not… those are the politicos we have y con ellos hay que arrear? Have any of those waxing indignant in this blog any mileage and political muscle away from their armchairs? Have any of those waving philosophical in this blog any track record, anywhere, in any field, that could lead to a measurable and meaningful change in Venezuelan politics and would make the rest of population think “damn, that’s my candidate”? Have we not learned that anti-politics is not the way, that anti-politics gives rise to Chavezes? A politico, who is an individual like any other, who doesn’t agree with party politics and walks away, is he any different than a blogger who boast about his iconoclastic stance, about his refusal to “toe anyone’s line”? Have any of the uber educated, polyglot, atrincalabola huevos pelaos who keep commenting on this blog the secret recipe to solve (and carry out in the ground) any of the never ending list of problems of our country?

      • Alek — this is silly. You want us all to be cheerleaders only? That’s not good for anyone, least of all the opposition. Opposition voters need to think hard and carefully about which candidate is the strongest, given the nation’s big problems. Attempts to stifle debate are counter-productive. A military in bed with FARC, desperate poverty, one of the worst and most serious crime problems in the world, a public sector in ruins…why shouldn’t we be asking if LL’s CV is sufficient?

        • Lucia, I don’t want us to be cheerleaders only, and as far as questioning is concerned, I practice it every time, this being one of them.

          It is fair to ask the questions you’ve proposed, and equally fair to ask the questions I proposed, and it is equally fair for others to propose other countless questions about the future of our country. However, and this is the bit that gets me, what’s with the extemporary and relentless attack from FT on any candidate or politico that’s not of his liking, having read his nauseating hagiography of non entities such as Roberto Smith? Is it not evident by now that a candidate that meets all the requirements as per qualifications, credentials and lack of ego that a Bill Clinton / Habermas / Elias Santana / Roberto Smith cheerleader hopes for just does not exist?

          In fact, this reminds of a discussion that I had years ago with one of FT’s idols: Elias Santana. He was arguing that competition in democracy was healthy, with which I totally agreed. Problem was, and it’s gotten much worse, Venezuela is no longer a democracy. Let us see how we can ALL collaborate to bring a resemblance of democracy back, and THEN, let us start the bickering. Not before. Not while our chances of victory are so slim. Not while this uncertainty dominates every aspect of our country.

          There’s a time for searing attacks. That time is not now. That’s what I think anyway.

        • Lucia, I don’t want you all to be cheerleaders, and I couldn’t agree more with you re the need to question. However, there’s a time and a place for us to be pretending to be the moral judges and authorities on whether or not certain candidates have what it takes to solve our country’s problems.

          What gets me is FT’s constant attempts to ridicule candidates of politicos he doesn’t approve of, especially coming on the back of the nauseating hagiography he’s written in the past about non entities such as Roberto Smith. Is it not evident by now that a candidate that meets the requirements as per qualifications, credentials and lack of ego of a Bill Clinton / Habermas / Elias Santana / Roberto Smith cheerleader just doesn’t exist?

          This discussion reminds of a similar one I had years ago with one of FT’s idols: Elias Santana. He was saying that competition was a healthy thing to have in a democracy. With that, I can only but agree. Problem was, and it’s gotten much worse, Venezuela is not a democracy. Let us ALL try and collaborate in bringing back a resemblance of democracy, and THEN we can merrily start bickering to our hearts’ content. That time is not now.

          No wonder any foreign observer of the Venezuelan situation arrives at the conclusion that Chavez’s opposition is useless. So useless in fact that those who are meant to know better can’t grasp the basics, which is when in a hole… FT’s searing attacks serve what/whose purpose?

          Alek as Pedro Perez. For whatever reason I couldn’t post using my own login details.

      • wow alek. for someone so consistently indignado to the point of hysteria, in previous years, it’s funny to read you now, as you pronounce from the pulpit and wag your finger. Again. But let’s not dwell on that side of the coin. Rather, I would ask, do YOU have all the qualification that you berate others for not having?

        As for wanting someone who is prepared and has experience on the national scale (an abnormalityto you), would you rather we vote for Chavez? Never mind, why do I ask? I’ve already made up my mind and I’m afraid that your usual array of resentments isn’t going to make one bit of a difference. at least, not to me.

        • It’s funny how you, of all people, questions my stance now, when not too long ago you were criticising me for making what you perceived was an immature and irresponsible use of a website read by many people.

          But then this Rather, I would ask, do YOU have all the qualification that you berate others for not having?

          Read again darling. I am not berating anyone for NOT having qualifications. The contrary in fact. I am mocking the overqualified, the overeducated, the polyglots, the “indignados”, the atrincalabola huevo pelaos que creen que se las saben todas.

          Me? I don’t have the qualifications. I suppose I am just an unpolished, uneducated, unsophisticated, brute, extreme right wing resentido, and, by your constant attacks against me, someone who has no right to express an opinion in this forum, when that opinion departs from the dogma of the omniscient blog owner, and Sydney Hedderich.

          Alek as Pedro Perez

          • So now you’re using a different pseudonym, Alek Boyd? Hiding? I’m not the only one with an opinion of Alek Boyd’s losses over his “estribos”. And I have no idea about your latest “injury” regarding your perception of my perception, since you carefully sidestep any clarification. But I do clearly recall your (sigh, again) lashing out with a ridiculously concocted lie, some months ago. It was this: that I had *begged* you to post an article that I wrote and you published (about the muslim-venezuelan left ties in Toronto) in yoiur newsletter/blog.Dear Alek Boyd / Pedro Pérez or whomever you wish to impersonate, you have selective amnesia, when you forget that you were the one that approached me to contribute, early on, to your blog. (I had reservations due to my not always reliable writing skills.) Then, when I did produce, you accept the article without question. Where I probably annoyed you to the point that you have concocted this fairy tale about me begging you to publish, is that I asked you on two occasions if I could edit thaht article which you were glad to publish, for reposting. As I said, I’m not a cracker jack writer.

            You were “injured” again, when I wouldn’t support your “estribo-loss” behaviour, regarding your calls for violence against the Mayor’s office, in London, England (a city where you, your wife, and children still live, I take it, a city where you have taken ample opportunity of its higher education, though King’s College has no such Master’s designation which you use on your bios that appear elsewhere. But I digress.) I found your screed then to be beyond the pale. But then, there’s an age difference between us, to say nothing of a behaviour modality.A behaviour modality, however, that does not hesitate to point out a few things to young bucks who could use a little reining in.

            Oh, and by the way, you correctly memorized my annoyance at Quico’s earlier pirouette, when he posted my full name on his blog, like a child who was mad at something I said. So now Alek Boyd does the same, because he’s mad I don’t lavish praise on him.

            Cuerda de inmaduros…
            Oh brother.

          • Round 9…

            Sydney, I am not hiding. I don’t need to. As it turns, my comments yesterday seemed to have ended up in the spam for whatever reason, hence my posting using my REAL NAME at the end of comment.

            For the record, I did ask you to write for vcrisis, and you did beg me to publish a piece of yours, entitled “What Binds Canada, Venezuela, Iraq And Pakistan?” As a matter of fact, this is what you wrote to me: “dear alek, I wd love to have you publish the piece…” When other outlets, such as Toronto Star and Miami Herald decide against going with it, I did publish it, and made further edits according to your requests, this is what you said: “you’re a gem. alek.”

            But then you come again with that unsubstantiated lie about me calling for violence against the Mayor’s office, in London. I have asked you before to produce evidence to support this preposterous allegation of yours -I assume you didn’t find any- and I will reiterate again Sydney Hedderich: please place here, or anywhere else for the reading public, evidence of my alleged calls for violence against the Mayor’s office in London.

            As per your allegations of my misuse of a Master’s designation, well, I should guess it was too difficult for you to google it:

            http://www.postgrad.com/Kings_College_London_University_of_London_Kings_College_London_University_of_London_Spanish_Spanish_and_Spanish_American_Studies/course/155119/

            http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/splas/about/index.aspx

            http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/splas/study/pgt/index.aspx

            As per my calling you by your real name, I also happen to have another email from you, when you wrote about your article: “when searching for it using vcrisis.com’s search engine and using obvious key words, each in turn: “Maria Páez Victor”, “What binds Canada, Venezuela, Iraq and Pakistan?”, “Sydney Hedderich”, there were no results. This is a shame since I’d very much like it if a search for Maria Páez Victor, at least, turned up the article I wrote, preferably in google and in vcrisis.com.

            I suggest you give it a rest Sydney. There are many things in which I disagree with FT, though in his perception of your persona, I find myself being totally in agreement.

            Now the question is, will you shut up and avoid further unnecessary embarrassment, or will you come back for round 10?

          • Alek, the only “rounds” with you that I get involved in are those, where you manipulate facts in order to put yourself on a pedestal at the expense of others.

            Look, I’m really sorry that you had such a rough childhood. You’re not the only one, but you’re the only one I know that after all these years, is still running around like the equivalent of screaming banshee. Maybe others who’ve been through early difficulties have deducted brilliantly that they need therapy and have sought same. Or maybe, they’ve just grown up and left their axe sharpening days behind. What do you think? Nah, I’m really not interested in your response; it doesn’t belong here, anyway.

            I was writing my comment, yesterday, in response to your as usual cherry picking out of context to serve your angry needs. I didn’t bother scrolling to the end of your comment. And frankly I don’t have the time to review it in order to provide you with much needed attention.

            So now it’s clear, that in spite of your earlier attempts to manipulate, you were the one to approach me to contribute to your blog, early on. And it’s also clear that I finally provided you with an article to fulfill that much earlier request of yours. What I said to you as a way of introduction with that article is quite normal in the course of adult behaviour (“I’d love it if you would publish…”). What would you rather I say, “tómate tu tomate”? Yet Alek, you’re now trying to twist my comment with negative innuendo. That spells someone with an axe to grind. That spells someone who can’t be trusted.. That I thanked you profusely for making the corrections (which you were very good to do) is also normal, given that I was aware that my post-publishing request would reasonably annoy you. I don’t know what you’re trying to get at, by repeating my praise of you, years ago (before I realized that you were becoming increasingly unhinged), since I’m not qualified to act as your therapist. Do you need validation over how wonderful you can be? Are you that insecure?

            I also don’t get what your driving at by reposting my comment to you that the article in question doesn’t show up in the vcrisis or google search. For it was important to me to have María Paéz Victor’s name show up, as the Bolivarian Circle lynchpin in Toronto.
            Is it to call attention to the fact that you already had my full name? Is it to exculpate your use of that full name on these comments, where I prefer anonymity? Let me be clear: I prefer anonymity, evidently not respected by you nor Quico, because a few unhinged Chavez lovers have taken my name, and in immature fashion, have concocted some diatribes against me on one or another blog, and these diatribes have subsequently shown up against my name and small business.

            If reasonable people come to these boards with an anonymous handle, that should be respected. Evidently you and Quico felt an otherwise need, because I happened to point out the ego-tripping. As I said, una cuerda de inmaduros.

            As for your calls for violence against Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, I noticed that you skirt that particular aspect of your behaviour. I did not support it then (and you were upset with me about that); I don’t support that behaviour now. But here’s one person who did lend you support: http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2006/05/open-letter-to-ken-livingstone-london.html . Daniel refers to you as a putative terrorist. I’m not interested in your post-action manipulations, but I will caution you with this: Anytime in future when you’re involved with a potentially legal scenario, don’t think you’re so smart that you don’t need a lawyer. If you know you have acted on good faith and in good principle, you can easily recover the costs of that legal advice.

            As for your advertising yourself as having an MA (Spanish …LatAm Studies) from King’s College, it is a program that was just rolled out September 2011. But you’ve been posting your credentials as already having that particular MA degree.(Oh really? What was your dissertation, as per the program’s requirement?) That’s why those at the Master’s administrative office at King’s College didn’t know about this MA in Spanish, a few months ago. (I couldn’t understand how Alek Boyd who lynches others for their educational perseverence and attainment, who never stated that he had achieved a BA, all of a sudden was advertising himself as having attained a Masters degree.)

            Oh, and FYI to those who think people are stupid… Just because you have been taking post-graduate studies, does not mean that you have a Masters, particularly where none was offered in the time frame in which you were earlier posting your manipulated credentials.

            That you’re describing yourself as having a Masters in a program that was just rolled out last month is duplicitous. As I said before, you can’t be trusted, Alek, with the care over words or deeds. Is that why you lash out so much? To cover your tracks?
            Are you going to try to convince me otherwise with another round? Don’t bother wasting your time, Alek. My mind was made up long ago.

          • Round 10 then…

            Sydney says she is not interested, she doesn’t have the time, it doesn’t belong here, and yet Sydney has just written 881 words in a futile attempt to refute my arguments.

            Moving on now, and to be certain of one thing, I don’t need you to praise me or put me in a pedestal. I couldn’t care less. However, from that to remain silent about your fantastic tales about me having threatened with violence the office of the Mayor of London, or indeed the Mayor himself, I have to expose you as a liar, as a person that cares so little for the integrity of others, on the back of ridiculous calls for anonymity -after demanding that her name be searchable in Google- that ignoring it is impossible.

            So you haven’t been able to find evidence to support your preposterous allegations then.

            You then carry on with your moral self flagellation, stating that my claim about having completed an MA at King’s College is a lie. Had you visited all the links I provided, you should have been able to see that my claim is perfectly legitimate. But no, you didn’t, and reiterated -at the expense of more embarrassment for you- that I don’t have the credentials that I say I have gained.

            In another wicked twist, you then say that I need therapy, due to my difficult childhood. Therapy then, I need, says who? An photographer. You must be borrowing from Noam Chomsky, or Eva Golinger…

            I never said that I didn’t approach you for contributions to vcrisis. I did, I admit it, no drama there. As I asked you, I asked many others, for I considered at the time that the more the merrier, and the broader the scope of opinions the better. After all vcrisis was, thanks to my efforts, the only blog that was consistently listed in Google News, and our version of Venezuela reality was sorely unrepresented. In this respect, I don’t have an axe grind, beyond defending myself, dignity and integrity, and putting you in your place while exposing you as a deceitful and imaginative liar.

            You say I can’t be trusted, and I shall reiterate, for the umpteenth time -I know, I know, you don’t have time- whenever you do find the time, place here, or anywhere where the reading public can access, evidence of what you refer to as duplicitous, or false, written by me.

            The onus is on you. I have provided ample evidence to expose you. I have copies of every email of yours, since 2004, and I can back up what I wrote above easily. Can you do the same Sydney? No? Who is the unhinged needing therapy then?

          • your stretches are pathetic, Alek. As I said, I already made up my mind about you, some time ago. Not because of one or two or three instances of unhinged behaviour. We all have a few of those. But because of an excessive and repetitive pattern. Over years.

            I’m not expecting you to answer my question, as to what your dissertation was for that MA degree that you associate yourself as having attained (qué bolas). But let it be known, that your posturing for a number of months, if not longer, as having an MA degree from an MA program that just started last month, at King’s College, is FALSE.

            You berate the educational attainment of others because you feel deficient in that area. Now you tack on a degree to your name, as pretense, when you have not attained it.

            It does not surprise me.

            Perhaps you can copy and paste this comment and figure out how many words I”ve written. That would fit perfectly with your real level, Alek.

          • Round… is it 15 already?

            your stretches are pathetic, Alek. As I said, I already made up my mind about you, some time ago. Not because of one or two or three instances of unhinged behaviour. We all have a few of those. But because of an excessive and repetitive pattern. Over years.

            So you did find the time, eh? Great! Oh, but I have some emails that could help show how level-headed, and mature Ms Hedderich here fires completely gratuitous, unjustifiable and searing comments, and this very blog contains numerous examples of same. At least you admit as much, moving on…

            I’m not expecting you to answer my question, as to what your dissertation was for that MA degree that you associate yourself as having attained (qué bolas). But let it be known, that your posturing for a number of months, if not longer, as having an MA degree from an MA program that just started last month, at King’s College, is FALSE.

            Ahh, the indignation, the conviction, capital letters and expletives in Spanish and all. Google must be down in Toronto… Read this Sydney, if you have time, of course. There’s more: “Spanish was first taught at King’s College London in 1831…” If your agenda permits, make sure you click the tab that reads “Postgraduate”. And this, I promise I won’t ask more of your time: “Mario Vargas Llosa was Lecturer in Spanish American Literature in the Department of Spanish & Spanish-American Studies at King’s College London from 1969-1970…” So what do you reckon Syd, is Nobel laureate Vargas Llosa also lying?

            You berate the educational attainment of others because you feel deficient in that area. Now you tack on a degree to your name, as pretense, when you have not attained it.

            Yeah, yeah, how disingenuous of me, I know… But is not lost in me, hopefully neither in the reading public, that you have failed to post here any evidence to support your spurious allegation about me having threatened the Mayor of London, despite having been googling for it. Liar then? Will you carry on digging?

          • How nice of you to ask, Syd, for the first time, what is the title of my dissertation.

            Before I reply, let it be known that you have lied about alleged threats that you invented I made against the Mayor of London, and you have also lied about my not having academic credentials I claim I have. So you’re a liar, and you’ve inflicted unrepairable damage to your credibility by being unable to conduct simple Google searches.

            Now, I am happy to oblige: the title of my dissertation was “El devenir de la crítica Santos-Luzardiana: siembra moral desde Rómulo Gallegos hasta Arturo Uslar Pietri.” If you must know, I got merits in my MA. As per not having a BA before enrolling in the masters, normally a standard requisite, you’re quite right, I didn’t. That, however, wasn’t an impediment. Despite the fact I was offered the place, in the same way that I was offered to read Geology before that at Birkbeck College, without having the normally necessary TOEFL or IELTS credentials, in the same way that I was offered an unconditional offer to carry onto to doctorate research after concluding my MA. So obviously, some university professors, with PhDs and all, don’t seem to think that I am that ‘unhinged’ fellow in ‘need of therapy’ that you claim I am.

            Give it a rest Syd. Recalibra tu resentimiento y apunta p’a otro lado.

          • thank you, Alek for that information on your dissertation. I asked you prior to your “round 10” but you missed that in your blinding anger/accusations/frustrations/obfuscations. I

            Strange that administrative staff for the MA at King’s College were not familiar with the degree granted for the program you noted in your bio. It’s also strange that you feel such a need to denigrate the small and large achievements, academic or otherwise, of others. I can only hope that your children are not berated for their efforts, the way you so consistently attempt to do with others.

            As for Mario Vargas Llosa’s association with KC, it has nothing to do with the argument.
            Nor do a whole bunch of other non-sequiturs from you. But I digress.

            I’m glad you finally had to admit that your accusations against me (in several instances) for having *begged you* to publish an article I wrote, long ago, are now discounted. Frankly, I’m appalled at how you could even entertain that petty smear. Repeatedly, until finally you saw the ligh, todayt.

            But so many other ridiculous comments from you, regarding me, still stand. I won’t bother dignifying them, as I know the place they’re coming from. It is not a healthy place.

            And speaking of place (of mind), you asked me for proof of your calls for violence, since you were unwilling to disclose or clarify. For good reason.They are an embarrassment. And God forbid you should take responsibility for and admit to your unhinged comments and behaviour.

            What I remember were your outrageous calls for violence, which in turn, climaxed with the involvement of the offices of the former Mayor of London. The finer details were a little lost to the mists of time. For unlike you, I don’t obsess over keeping email correspondence with every tom, dick and harry. (Creeepy.)

            Fortunately Google made it an easy find. And while I don’t favour extremes of any sort — be they from the right or the left, I am grateful to two leftist scribes who have provided us with the quotes you emitted, a few years back, but are so coy about admitting to, today.

            Here are the links that reproduce those quotes of yours:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/01/friendsinlowplaces
            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3896754&mesg_id=3900294

            This will come as a shock to you. But I wouldn’t want the person, who wrote those deranged calls for violence (meaning you), for public consumption, anywhere near me. To that effect, I’d have to side with Ken Livingstone as the voice of reason.

            This will also come as a shock to you. But I believe Justin Delacour was being kind in his suggestion. Although that suggestion might be incomplete without a nutritional assessment, first.

          • How naive of me to have thought that you would give it a rest, after having been so comprehensibly nailed, though it seems you’re a glutton for further humiliation, so here we go with round 16…

            Strange that administrative staff for the MA at King’s College were not familiar with the degree granted for the program you noted in your bio. It’s also strange that you feel such a need to denigrate the small and large achievements, academic or otherwise, of others. I can only hope that your children are not berated for their efforts, the way you so consistently attempt to do with others.

            First of all, I warn you: leave my children out of this. You can attack me, my childhood, my mental state, etc., all you want, alas it appears that that’s not enough: in your sick desperation you are prepared to drag my children into this. You are, definitely, an amoral person Sydney Hedderich.

            I presume then, that you emailed / called King’s College London to ask whether or not there was a MA in Spanish American Studies. And they said, according to you, that no such programme existed, or has ever existed. Wow. You’re getting deeper, and deeper. So I shall ask you to post here evidence of such communications, if done over email, or name of administrative staff at King’s College London who denied the existence of a programme advertised in King’s College London website, a programme that (until 21 minute ago) was open for admission. So what are you suggesting now Syd, that King’s College London, one of the best universities in the world, is running some sort of scam inviting all visitors to their website to enrol in a programme that, according to your “administrative staff” at King’s, does not exist?

            As for Mario Vargas Llosa’s association with KC, it has nothing to do with the argument. Nor do a whole bunch of other non-sequiturs from you. But I digress.

            Of course it has something to do Syd. That your profound resentment is clouding what any normal person would conclude upon reading your baseless tirade about a programme established last month, when, as a matter of fact, King’s College London Spanish Department is one of the oldest in the UK, and Nobel peace prize winner Mario Vargas Llosa was a visiting lecturer in the very department where I completed my MA back in 1969, invalidates your senseless and false allegation that the department has existed for one month. Had you visited the links I provided you with above, you should have been able to read this: “The Department of Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Studies (SPLAS) at King’s is a new department with historical roots; the amalgamation of the department of Spanish and Spanish American Studies and the department of Portuguese and Brazilian studies.”

            I’m glad you finally had to admit that your accusations against me (in several instances) for having *begged you* to publish an article I wrote, long ago, are now discounted. Frankly, I’m appalled at how you could even entertain that petty smear. Repeatedly, until finally you saw the ligh, todayt.

            I am not discounting anything, you did beg me. That the begging came after I had asked you to collaborate with vcrisis, has nothing to do with the fact.

            But so many other ridiculous comments from you, regarding me, still stand. I won’t bother dignifying them, as I know the place they’re coming from. It is not a healthy place.

            Right, be smart, if you can. Don’t “dignify” them, for the more you do so, the greater the embarrassment for you.

            And speaking of place (of mind), you asked me for proof of your calls for violence, since you were unwilling to disclose or clarify. For good reason.They are an embarrassment. And God forbid you should take responsibility for and admit to your unhinged comments and behaviour. What I remember were your outrageous calls for violence, which in turn, climaxed with the involvement of the offices of the former Mayor of London. The finer details were a little lost to the mists of time. For unlike you, I don’t obsess over keeping email correspondence with every tom, dick and harry. (Creeepy.) Fortunately Google made it an easy find. And while I don’t favour extremes of any sort — be they from the right or the left, I am grateful to two leftist scribes who have provided us with the quotes you emitted, a few years back, but are so coy about admitting to, today.

            Here are the links that reproduce those quotes of yours:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/01/friendsinlowplaces
            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3896754&mesg_id=3900294

            This will come as a shock to you. But I wouldn’t want the person, who wrote those deranged calls for violence (meaning you), for public consumption, anywhere near me. To that effect, I’d have to side with Ken Livingstone as the voice of reason.

            OK, so having failed to find appropriate evidence, you now resort to your memory, and to the writings of a thug like Calvin Tucker, and a discredited chavista apologist, as the source of evidence of non-existent calls for violence that I purportedly issued against the Mayor of London. Lame, lame…

            Tucker has issued threats against commenters of this very blog, of that I have plenty of evidence. Tucker is on record praising violent coups, communist dictators, putschist, Tucker has, in fact, boasted about having given such a severe beating to another person that it needed reconstructive surgery to its face. Though you are right, in siding with Livingstone, he also kept Tucker’s counsel on pretty much everything about Venezuela. Oh and that’s the same Livingstone who praises Chavez, the IRA, the same Livingstone who sides with let’s-kill-homosexuals Islamofundamentalists clerics… Way to go Sydney, do keep that sort of company, you’ll be right at home!

            But it gets worse for you darling. You have failed to produce any evidence of my alleged threats of violence against the Mayor of London. You are nothing but a liar, regardless of however much you try now to construct tales and join inexistent dots.

            This will also come as a shock to you. But I believe Justin Delacour was being kind in his suggestion. Although that suggestion might be incomplete without a nutritional assessment, first.

            Yeah, sure, the ultimate authorities on me, and my mental sanity, are a thug from London who takes pride in beating the crap out of people, a Chavez sycophant who while berating the capitalist opposition movement for years was taking advantage of vulnerable women in Venezuela and getting his revolutionary per diem exchanged for a nice rate in the black market, and Ken Livingstone, one of the most discredited and radical politicians of the UK. Oh, and you of course, a ‘mature, level headed’ photographer on her 50ies? 60ies? who gets a kick out of insulting, and dragging innocent people into things they have no relation with whatsoever.

            Liar, disturbed, unhinged, duplicitous, false… all those words describe quite fittingly your tirade in this page Sydney Hedderich. I shall save this, for future reference, for I know you’re so deranged that you’ll come back for more.

          • Alek, really, give it a rest. You’re not going to change my mind about you, nor your silly diatribes against me and my age (your earlier shot-in-the-dark about my decalcified hip was amusing, if not pitiful), and against my photography (after a good career in financial services, successes in entrepreneurship, and serious training for all endeavours). As for your *outrage* over my *intervention* in your children’s life because of this comment I can only hope that your children are not berated for their efforts, the way you so consistently attempt to do with others., it reveals you for what you are: a narcissistic sh*t disturber who is so frequently blinded by rage that he can’t even aim straight. But has all the time in the world to be counting the number of words used by Perenceja.

            That’s not the behaviour from someone who has gone the distance — the hard way, rather than by shortcuts — in education. And speaking of which, regardless of your demands of me, my information from King’s College was via a privately handled matter.That is how it will stay.

            As for the articles from Justin Delacour and Calvin Tucker … Irrespective of their politics, they provide us, today, with your verbatim comments, c. 2004. For what do you think would have happened had I had turned your obfuscations into a simple request that you, Alek, provide a link to your March 18, 2004 article in your now defunct blog/newsletter Vcrisis? I can’t find that article in Google, not even in cache — why?. Though I”m sure the article has been saved in the vaults of every leftist journo wannabe.

            Had it not been for Tucker and Delacour, you would continue to obfuscate so as to avoid accounting for your responsibility in publishing that March 18, 2004 article, where you expressed bizarre and unhinged wishes. Part of them reminded me an 8-year old. But then, no 8 year old I’ve ever known publishes for mass consumption words as follows: “I wish I was Genghis Khan, I wish I had eaten my half-brother … Therefore the scum of this earth aka Hugo Chávez and followers would not be willing to piss me off. Ergo they would be extremely careful of not treading on my rights. Attempts to conquer commanded by me would encounter nothing less than total submission owing to the sheer fear that my presence would cause.”

            Very freudian.

            You continue with your Genghis Khan alter ego wish so that you could order your “hordes” to capture prominent Venezuelan political and judicial officials and “pour melted silver into their eyes … I wish I could decapitate in public plazas Lina Ron and Diosdado Cabello … I wish I could torture for the rest of his remaining existence Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel… I wish I could fly over Caracas slums throwing the dead bodies of the criminals that have destroyed my country.”

            And trying to put Tariq Ali down by using the perjorative “that Paki journalist”?

            It’s clear why no lawyer would have taken on your defense, when you claimed *distress* in your complaint to the City of London, over a year following the incident with the Mayor: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28558398/THE-ASSESSMENT-SUB-COMMITTEE-OF-THE-GREATER-LONDON-AUTHORITYS .

          • I am not going to give it a rest, for one simple reason: you have lied about me, you have lied about supposed threats that I issued against the Mayor of London, which you couldn’t support with evidence. So, you are lying, deceitful, totally unhinged, sad spectacle of a woman. I don’t want to change your mind, I couldn’t care less about what you think. What I will not go quiet about is inventions from freaks like you, in pretty much the same how I absolutely nailed that London thug known as Calvin Tucker. I have given you plenty of chance to prove that I made those threats you concocted about me and the Mayor. And you didn’t, you couldn’t, because I never made those threats.

            Your rehashing of writings of Tucker and Delacour is beyond pathetic, more psychopathic like. I have never denied having been stupid enough to publish about a nightmare I had. I shouldn’t have done it, but then again, I was referring to a nightmare. I have lived in many different countries, and I have never, ever, had any problems with the justice. Your sources about me though can’t say the same. On the contrary, their actions suggest that they are the ones that have had run ins with the justice.

            You also lied about what you described as my false claiming of academic credentials. You tried to ridicule me, using my difficult upbringing. You then had the nerve of dragging my children into this. You are a sick, wicked and wretched woman. And, I guess, your curse is that you have to live with yourself for the rest of your miserable existence.

            Since I started blogging about Venezuela, in October 2002, I have across my share of deranged fundamentalist of all stripes. But you Sydney Hedderich, you take the crown. Here’s where I defer to the blog owner, with whom I have had countless disagreements over the years, and borrow his very apt description of you: “… the single nastiest, bitchiest, most screechingly obnoxious and – yes – pettiest commenter I’ve ever had at this point, and that’s a distinction she’s won against some friggin’ tough competition.”

            In addition, and despite all your efforts and verbal contortions, I have exposed you as a vulgar liar, and this blog post shall remain as proof of it.

          • Oh dear. Poor, poor Alek. All he has to show to prove whatever against me is one comment that a pre-ulcer Quico made, in a comments section that does not keep,so to speak (unless someone with an axe to grind is saving it), at a time when he didn’t like me pointing out a few things. As I said, some have a little prima donna routine, now and then. In Quico’s case, these are isolated incidents; there’s not a pattern of repeated unhinged behaviour. Rather, the behaviour pattern tends to the more rational end of the spectrum.

            Your behaviour is another kettle of fish.

            Get some help, Alek. There’s no shame in that. As a lay person with long-term experience in dealing with one that’s affected by bipolar disorder, I’ve been told that the unhinged behaviour is supposed to get worse with age. But don’t just take my word for it.

            I wish you peace. And health — in every sense of the word.

          • dear. Poor, poor Alek. All he has to show to prove whatever against me is one comment that a pre-ulcer Quico made…

            Nope, there’s more than one comment lie, not precisely from FT, but from you Sydney. Evidence is up there for all to see.

            In Quico’s case, these are isolated incidents; there’s not a pattern of repeated unhinged behaviour. Rather, the behaviour pattern tends to the more rational end of the spectrum.

            Unhinged behaviour? Coming from a person so sick, that’ll be you, who stops at nothing to win an indefensible argument, a person so fucked up in the head, that’s prepared to invent, insult, lie, and side with deranged fundamentalists who take pride in disfiguring people, and others who see no moral problem in supporting someone like Chavez? That’s rich.

            Get some help, Alek. There’s no shame in that. As a lay person with long-term experience in dealing with one that’s affected by bipolar disorder, I’ve been told that the unhinged behaviour is supposed to get worse with age. But don’t just take my word for it.

            As I have amply established, your word has no value. You’re a deeply disturbed person. So before recommending others who have, basically caught you cagando y sin papel, to get help, get a long and hard look in the mirror.

            I wish you peace. And health — in every sense of the word.

            You are going to be needing that, much more than me. Keep your wishes to yourself, or for someone who may appreciate those wishes. I have read enough from you to know that those are the empty words of a deranged woman.

          • Just stumbled across this thread and would like to add the following:

            1. Whether you agree or disagree with my politics (and I’m sure 99% of people here will disagree) is irrelevant to the fact that I quoted Alek Boyd accurately and in context in my Guardian piece. As the Press Complaints Commission said in it’s report following Boyd’s formal complaint, there were “no inaccuracies”.
            http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/anti-chavez_blogger_loses_press_complaint_01885.html

            2. Boyd is on record calling for violence, again and again and again, so his denials merely expose as fruitcake with a tenuous grasp of reality. In his own words: “Re advocating for violence yes I have mentioned in many occasions that in my view that is the only solution left for dealing with Chavez.” Please note that he states “on many occassions”.

            3. Alek Boyd comments about me on this thread are transparently false. This is tedious, but what happened was that during a heated debate following (I think) the recall referendum, one or two commenters here on CC made some veiled threats (and not so veiled) against me, and I RESPONDED by saying that if they wished to fight me they should arrange to meet me in person, but they should be warned that the last person to assualt me (I was victim of an unprovoked attack in a bar) came off pretty badly (the police were involved and agreed it was self defence).

            Boyd quotes me as follows: “Example 1: Listen, Mr Internet Tough Guy, I’m not interested in your threats. If you want to fight me, let’s meet…”

            And: “Example 2: Now j.scott bernard wants to fight me! This is getting distinctly surreal…”

            And: Example 3: Example 3: BUT… if you think you can intimidate ME with threats, you’re picking on the wrong guy…”

            As anyone who can read English can clearly see, in each case I was RESPONDING to threats made against me. What Boyd has done is deliberately omit the original threats and only post my responses. This is dishonest and frankly pretty pathetic.

            Incidentally, j.scott bernard and I made up afterwards and “shook hands” (as it were) and as far as I am concerned that’s the end of the matter. I don’t want to speak for Scott, but I’m sure he feels the same way.

          • Thank you, Calvin. As you correctly stated, politics is irrelevant to the issues under discussion. These deal predominantly with the personality disorder of a certain blogger. And as I’m sure you’re aware, these disorders can manifest themselves through any player, at any point on the political spectrum. I’m sure you’re aware of the basket cases on the left, and those in undetermined stations, such as your once and present(?) idol, Hugo Chávez. Isn’t it interesting how politics can provide a mask?

            The fact that Boyd’s disorders resurfaces, years later, and is then twisted to transfer responsibilities to another, is proof that these personality issues are not one-off events. They are part of a continuum.

            Boyd kept goading me to prove my comment that he had called for violence in the past. He thought that by eliminating the tracks on his blog, he would continue to free himself of responsibility for his tantrums. He thought that by assaulting me with his barrage of name-calling, he’d be able to continue his deflections.

            Did he think that other proof of his past tantrums doesn’t exists? Or, did he think my IQ was so low that I would not be able to search. And it was an easy search, just by googling Alek Boyd, violence, Ken Livingstone.

            Boyd has a lot to contribute, but he needs some reining in to keep things in perspective. Hopefully by the age of 40, which some say is the start of wisdom, he will have assessed his assets and liabilities. The latter, I presume, will be difficult for him, if not impossible. I believe that when Boyd is finally able to account for these melt-downs, and to realize their origins, he will be less of an enemy to himself.

            In a similar vein regarding perspective and personal assessment, I hope you, Calvin, can come to some realization that your idolatry of a romanticized version of the left, far from your homeland, and where no accountability is expected, can never be good for any population.

          • Hi Syd – this may be the first and last time we ever agree on anything. Funnilly enough, I know way more left wing nutters, but hopefully that’s only because I happen to know more left wing people! I think politics can provide some folk with a framework within which they can project their own personal problems and disorders, a sort of ready made club with an audience, as it were.

            Incidentally, I’ve nothing personal against oppo supporters. I even used to have the odd beer with Alfredo Keller’s son when he was a student in London – disgreed on politics of course, but he was good fun and an intelligent guy to argue with. Then there’s that oppo girl who works down the cycle shop… mmm, I’m taken but I’ve gotta admit she’s hot! 😉 Alek may well be a nice guy too, but he needs to sort out his problems first, and grow up.

          • Sorry, Syd (and Calvin Tucker), but the following quote:

            “Re advocating for violence yes I have mentioned in many occasions that in my view that is the only solution left for dealing with Chavez.”

            Is *not*, in regular English, let alone in legalese, considered *a call* to violence. Similarly, for many months I stated and still believe that “force will be needed”. Whenever I did use that phrase, many, and I believe CT was one of them, tried to equate that to my *callling* for a coup or comparable violence. Deducing that force or violence will be required as part of a way out of chavez is not necessarily calling for it, however much you want to make it seem that way just to win an argument.

            So, Syd, before you sign up as a pal with the devil, look up what “calling for violence” requires, by definition. Alek Boyd’s statement, above, does not meet the criteria to accuse him of calling for violence. If you cannot find anything else to attribute to such an accusation, I suggest you retract, and say sorry, and perhaps write something in restitution.

            Why am I butting in now and telling you this? Because you’re siding with Calvin Tucker and using his statements and arguments as your basis. Think about that.

          • what absolute claptrap, ET: “So, Syd, before you sign up as a pal with the devil,”

            FYI: I side with the truth, and always will, your semantic pearls notwithstanding. But nice try — now how about actually supporting your hair splits.

            Oh and while you’re at it, do give me some idea of your preparation for interpreting legalese.

            As a reminder, AB published, in writing, several years ago, some absolutely outrageous, if not completely delusional comments with a violent wish-list component. He must thought so, too. Because he later erased those comments to hide his tracks. If those comments were non-offensive, if they were not completely off the wall, AB would have kept them in his blog for future reference, don’t you think?

            The comments could not be hidden, thanks to documentation from other sources. No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo.

            But AB tried. He goaded, and when I reproduced the comments verbatim, he began to use his stick like an angry hockey skater. He spewed forth all manner of names, which of course, he’s welcome to. But you can’t hide behind a smoke screen for ever.

            Now, you’re welcome to think AB’s comments are perfectly normal behaviour,squarely in your “angel” camp, as opposite of your “devil” label, which makes me wonder, are you clergy? Or is that how you classify the Venezuelan political process? If so, I take it you’re not a Caprilista. In the meantime, I’m left to wonder ….

            Ojo! I realize that a lot of readers are young, that they may not understand that having a melt-down (and AB’s was serious with serious consequences) does not detract from the merits of the person. Yes, ET, life is not all black vs white, devil vs angel. The problem exists when the melt downee isunable to acknowledged the melt-down, preferring to keep the illusion of perfection and “punching” those who dare remind him of that melt-down and disconnect with reality.

            Come down to earth *angelito*.

          • “you’re [syd] siding with Calvin Tucker and using his statements and arguments as your basis” ~ extorres

            They’re not my statements, they’re the statements of Aleksander Boyd. And they don’t stop being his statements because you don’t like the person (or devil) who quoted him!

            You also say (quoting Boyd) “Re advocating for violence yes I have mentioned in many occasions that in my view that is the only solution left for dealing with Chavez” is *not*, in regular English, let alone in legalese, considered *a call* to violence.

            Absolute rot! That’s precisely what it is!

            ad·vo·cate (dv-kt)
            tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
            To speak, plead, or argue in favor of

            Noun. advocate – a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea

            Advocating violence, i.e. speaking, pleading, propounding, or arguing in favour of violence = calling for violence.

          • ad·vo·cate   [v. ad-vuh-keyt; n. ad-vuh-kit, -keyt] Show IPA verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing, noun
            verb (used with object)
            1.
            to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

            For the life of me I can’t see what your point is. If Boyd has advocated violence, i.e. has written in favour of it, supported it, urged it, and publicly recommended it, then by definition, he has called for it.

            How can you publicly recommend and urge violence without calling for it? It means the same thing. If, say, you publicly recommend and urge Chavez to resign, you are calling on him to go. What else could you possibly mean? Please explain, cos I’m mystified.

          • Calvin Tucker, not surprisingly, you kept to the point in advancing the argument. Thank you, for that.

            Your logic, however, is that AB’s portion of his statement “Re advocating for violence” can be equated to “recommend and urge violence” which in turn is “a call” for it, and that is at fault.

            Firstly, the second portion of AB’s statement already specifies what he meant in his use of the word advocate. There is no reason to be translating based on someone else’s definition, when the author, himself, is explaining his use of the word “advocate”: he admits to advocation for violence as it pertains to it being, in his view, “the only solution left for dealing with Chavez.”

            The semantic issue here is that the definition of “calling for” has a commonality with “advocating for”, but they are not interchangeable. One can argue that the only solution left is violence without urging for it, much as one can urge for it without much argument. Both are forms of advocacy but only one is a form of calling for it. The definition of “calling for” includes a demand, a request, for it. AB neither makes a demand or request for it, merely deduces that it is the only solution left.

            As to Syd’s using your statements as a basis, I am refering to the statements you make regarding AB’s quotes. For example, you’ve made statements about AB calling for violence against chavez, when, in fact, the only quote you’ve put forth does not even use the word call, therefore, it’s your statement. Syd is using your statements as basis for her arguments.

            As to the devil bit, remember I have had exchanges with you, before, and your “redness” has shown through enough times for me to suggest caution to anyone who perhaps has not.

          • Syd: “I side with the truth, and always will”

            The truth is that a quote was put forth as proof that AB called for violence, when, in fact, the quote does no such thing, as per my explanation, above.

          • ET, I realize you’re setting up all these straw men (Syd’s siding with the devil, advocate does not equal call for, etc.). Here’s something that might help you understand that a wish for violence as Alek Boyd repeatedly expressed is synonymous with a call for violence. But don’t take it from me. Input “call for” in Thesaurus.com. There you will find this list of synonyms (I have bolded the words in dispute so that you can finally put some of those phony straw men to rest):

            accept, adopt, appoint, call for, cast, co-opt, commit oneself, crave, cull, decide on, designate, desire, determine, discriminate between, draw lots, elect, embrace, espouse, excerpt, extract, fancy, favor, feel disposed to, finger, fix on, glean, judge, love, make choice, make decision, make up one’s mind, name, opt for, predestine, prefer, see fit, separate, set aside, settle upon, sift out, single out, slot, sort, tab, tag, take, take up, tap, want, weigh, will, winnow, wish, wish for.

            Now let that be the end of your semantic attempts to avoid calling a spade by any other name. As for further particulars on what AB published, ask yourself, or better yet, ask AB, why those published words no longer appear in his defunct blog.

            This whole altercation began when AB got on his high horse – again – with Quico. At that point, I lost it. For I, too, had been malighed with AB’s earlier “tergivación” of my words, so that he would smell like a rose. I reminded him of that. A fray followed with equal responsibilities on my and Alek’s part. In the end, or until the next Genghis Khan routine, “le salió el tiro por la culata”, notwithstanding your support.

            Now good night.

          • Syd, the thesaurus.com quote you put up was not for “call for”.

            The correct quote for “call for” is:
            Main Entry: call for
            Part of Speech: verb
            Definition: demand; entail
            Synonyms: ask for, inquire, involve, lack, necessitate, need, occasion, request, require, suggest, want

            The quote you put were for
            Main Entry: choose
            Part of Speech: verb
            Definition: pick, select

            Aside from that, your argument supports what I am stating, that just because two words are synonyms in common portions of their definitions does not imply they are synonyms in all portions of their definitions. You’ll note that “want” and “ask for” are both synonyms of “call for”, but you’ll agree that to ask for something is not quite the same as just wanting it.

            Back to AB’s quote, it does not prove a call for violence. If you have no better proof than that quote to demonstrate his calling for violence, then your accusation holds no water.

          • And when I though that this pointless discussion had ended, here appears Calvin Tucker, how predictable, and Syd carries on with her untenable arguments about my “calls for violence”.

            Syd, you have reiterated your initial lie, the one that caused what you call “A fray followed with equal responsibilities on my and Alek’s part. In the end, or until the next Genghis Khan routine, “le salió el tiro por la culata”, notwithstanding your support.” That lie is this:

            And it was an easy search, just by googling Alek Boyd, violence, Ken Livingstone”

            I have repeatedly asked you to place here evidence of what you refer to as my calling for violence against Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London. You say it is an easy search. Therefore, for the umpteenth time, please place here evidence of my calling for violence against Ken Livingstone, or remain as the sick, unhinged, deranged, pathological liar that you are.

            As per Calvin Tucker, well, that thug’s gone beyond semantic discussion about violence, hasn’t he? Arrested for participating in violent protests in Wapping against perfectly legitimate private businesses decisions. Then, threatening people in this blog, in the course of which Calvin Tucker proudly boasted about having given another person a beating so vicious that it had to be taken to hospital, where the poor victim of Calvin Tucker ‘self defence’ needed facial reconstructive surgery. Same Calvin Tucker who continues, to this day, to cheer, apologise for, and proclaim his support of Stalin, Castro, Chavez…

            What a pair, Sydney Hedderich and Calvin Tucker. But I must admit that it does not surprise me. Syd and Calvin have something in common, a characteristic they share: one on the left, the other, presumably, on the right, they are both at the end of their respective spectrums, effectively standing side by side; they are both, without a doubt, the most vicious people I have ever encountered online since I started opposing Chavez. Calvin Tucker was the one who took his deranged tales about me to Livingstone, he made it personal in an article riddled with inaccuracies published by The Guardian, and he, proudly, said he was going to make me “famous / infamous”. While Syd has, for years, tried, without much success, to undermine and discredit me. Syd invented that I had issued ‘threats against the Mayor of London’ -which she can’t prove-, she’s no psychologist/psychiatrist yet she feels entitled and authoritative enough to make statements about my mental sanity, and then, having buried her credibility beyond salvage she sides with Livingstone, and his thuggish informant, to keep attacking me, dragging my family in the process, without proof, without evidence, and, unbelievably enough, she still claims she’s on the right.

          • Alek Boyd continues to knowingly assert falsehoods.

            1. He continues to lie about me having been threatening people, ignoring the incontrovertible proof that I was RESPONDING to threats made against me. See my post at October 31, 2011 at 8:51 am.

            2. He then says that I was “arrested for participating in violent protests in Wapping [a British industrial dispute circa 1985].” That’s true, but what Boyd omits to mention is that I was found not guilty, and went on to sue the police for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. I proved my case in a court of law in front of two juries and was awarded substantial damages, which unusually including exemplary (punitive) damages to reflect the seriousness of police misconduct. The arresting officers were described by the judge as “corrupt liars”, and I was “fully exonerated of any wrongdoing” and described as an “ordinary respectable law abiding Englishman”.

            3. He says that my Guardian article was “riddled with inaccuracies”, yet the Press Complaints Commission which investigated Boyd’s complaint stated that “no inaccuracies had been determined” http://infovenezuela.org/guardian-press-complaints-commission-240709.pdf

            I’m not a psychiatrist, and I don’t know what’s wrong with Boyd or why he continues to lie his head off, even after his lies and smears have been exposed by his own quoted words, by judges and juries, and by the PCC. Anyone who behaves in this odd and disturbing manner, whether they are of the right or the left, has a problem in distinguishing between fact and fantasy. I hope he seeks appropriate medical help.

          • Calvin, nice answer to AB, but you seemed to have missed answering me. Your only quote concluding that AB called for violence fails to support your conclusion. Ironically, part of your reply to AB is criticizing him for doing what you’re doing with respect to this quote in reference.

          • Hi extorres

            Sorry for not replying. I wasn’t being rude, I just didn’t know how to respond without repeating myself and I haven’t really got much else to add. It seems obvious to me that if you advocate a particular course of action, you are calling for it. Adocating is active not passive – i.e. you’re not simply dispassionately commenting on something, you’re urging it, arguing for it and so on.

          • maybe this will help you, ET: http://thesaurus.com/browse/call+for .
            On that page, there are options for verbs, just like there would be in any dictionary.
            as you may pretend to not know, in the world of word definitions and the like, more than one option is provided. In one of these options, you’ll find the synonyms “call for” and “wish, or wish for”.They are as one and the same, in spite of your obsessive manipulations to the contrary.

            Since you’re having so much difficulty accepting these synonyms as being one and the same, do contact Thesaurus. Maybe they’ll change things for you (and AB). Maybe, they’ll even destroy the evidence (like AB) that they ever put those synonyms together. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Right up there with your angel and devil world. Black and white.

          • Calvin Tucker, you’re pathetic. So you were responding to threats, right? Please place here evidence that would make a reasonable person conclude that my doubting your legal case against the Metropolitan Police is valid cause for you to threaten to beat me.

            While at it, please explain what sort of reasonable person would boast about having given a severe beating to another human being, so vicious, according to you, that the person was taken by ambulance and needed reconstructive surgery to his face afterwards.

            As per your argument defending your fantastic tales at the Guardian, little of what you, The Guardian, or the utterly discredited PCC for that matter say has any importance. As far as what you wrote about me, in The Guardian, it was all citing me out of context, false statements, and inaccuracies. Your boasting about making me, and what you call Tory mates of mine that I had never met, “famous / infamous” continues to be, to this day, unsubstantiated BS from your febrile Stalinist mind.

            The record speaks for itself. There’s ample evidence, that you can’t get rid off, of your apologising with assassins, with putschists, with terrorists, with dictators, with insane individuals that have forcefully imposed misery and death, upon millions of people. So please, get lost, for your actions have forevermore forfeited any claim of morality. You are nothing but a violent and dangerous thug, “from a LONDON barrio” as you once claim. It is seriously hilarious that your ilk are called CHAVs in the UK, and CHAVistas in my country.

          • So what are you saying now Syd? That having failed to find evidence to support your lie about “threats to the Mayor of London” that I never made, you’re tacking now to the argument that I have “destroyed evidence”?

            You wrote above:

            “And it was an easy search, just by googling Alek Boyd, violence, Ken Livingstone”</i

            What's happening, Google playing tricks on you again, as when you stupidly and vehemently denied the existence in one of the world's leading universities of one of the UK's oldest Spanish departments?

            This is getting surreal by the minute. Now it turns, I have the power to "destroy evidence", even though Sydney wrote above:

            Though I”m sure the article has been saved in the vaults of every leftist journo wannabe.

            Hey, email Calvin Tucker, or Justin Delacour, or Eva Golinger! I am sure they have plenty of ‘evidence’ of what you irresponsibly continue to call as my ‘threats of violence against the Mayor of London”

            Put up woman. Or have some dignity and shut up.

          • Sigh. Alek, we’ve been over and over this before. On this thread. You’re repeating yourself to create a smoke screen. Go back to the rounds. Look for my response regarding your involvement with Ken Livingstone.

            I know you’re trying your very best to do damage control. I know that you don’t want to account for your past behaviour. I know you’ve destroyed the evidence of your own published words. I know that you find it more entertaining to get on your high horse, impugn, and let us know how right you are, and how wrong everyone else is. Mate.

            But here’s the problem. Your words do float up, as reproduced by other sources.

            Here’s another problem. If someone has written for public consumption outrageous calls for/wishes for violence – even decapitation (to say nothing of issuing a petty biggoted label), and then eliminates that evidence on his publication, while doing everything possible to impugn others who dare bring up the topic, what does that say about the integrity and credibility of the person?

            How does it square with that person’s witch hunts against others whose integrity and credibility are at stake?

            Keep in mind, I don’t live in your Ghengis Khan world, where things are black and white. That’s too immature of a vision for me.That’s for those who need rigid definitions of right and wrong to keep them on track. So I”m not saying that you’re a bad, bad boy, Alek. I’m saying that you have an issue. And the day that you account for it, and account for what you stated, wtihout obfuscations, is the day you’ll be able to impugn others for their accountabilities.

          • Verga, las discusiones que Ustedes tienen son peores de las que yo he tenido con Firepigette. Esto me enseña a dejar ese tipo de intercambio. Es una ladilla para los otros. Por qué no intercambian sus emails y discuten en privado sobre sus rollos?
            Calvin, tú eres en especial una ladilla. Por qué no te esfumas? Qué buscas aquí?

          • No Syd, you go back the rounds. You said, on this thread, that I had made calls for violence against the Mayor of London. Specifically, against the Mayor of London. What you call “my involvement with Ken Livingstone” does absolutely nothing to support your allegation that I had made calls for violence against him.

            So, again, for the umpteenth + 4 time, place here evidence to back up your allegation, which you repeat again, and again, seemingly thinking that repetition will somewhat make it true. You were specific then, be specific now. Citing a review of my complaint, bringing evidence of the legal proceedings that I issued against Livingstone, citing Tucker, Delacour or Daniel Duquenal, does not, I repeat, does not, prove your point.

            For your point was, and continues to be until you retract it, that I have made calls for violence against the Mayor of London. Why can’t you prove it Syd? If it is so evident, so easy to research? I’ll tell you why, because I have never made such calls against the Mayor London. Ever. Nowhere have I ever written anything remotely implying that acts of violence are to be taken against the Mayor of London.

            And this is not damage control. This, rather, is calling your unsubstantiated BS. Had you phrased your attack differently, for instance, had you said “Alek has not moral ground on X, Y, and Z, because in the past he has made calls for violence”, I would have, of course, defended myself by arguing that what I see as the only solution to deal with Chavez does not equate, in my opinion, to saying “let’s all go out and attack Chavez.” I was merely expressing my opinion, which I maintain to this date BTW. But I am digressing. For you have referred, explicitly, specifically, about Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London. Assume it Sydney, you have misinterpreted my words. You are mixing issues, and citing me out context, just like your new pen pal Calvin Tucker.

            My “words do float up, as reproduced by other sources”? How come, then, you have miserably failed at posting them here? The ones about my alleged calls for violence against the Mayor of London I mean.

            And, please, spare me your talks about integrity. So far down this thread, after all you’ve written, such calls from you are as valid as those of Calvin Tucker.

            Things, or rather accusations, are black and white. You have accused me of something I have never done. You can’t prove your accusations. That’s it, right there, end of story. You mocked my academic credentials. I proved you wrong. You accused me of something I have never done. I proved you wrong. You can call it grey. Maturity. Me? I call you a deceitful, lying, sinister, irresponsible, resentful, joke of a mature woman, so unhinged that keeps going at something she can’t possibly prove. Fundamentalism I think is the appropriate term to describe your position.

          • “As per your argument defending your fantastic tales at the Guardian, little of what you, The Guardian, or the utterly discredited PCC for that matter say has any importance.” ~ Alek Boyd

            It was obviously important to you because you exchanged huge amounts of correspondence with them. Now you’ve lost – “there were no inaccuracies” in my Guardian piece – you blame the referee!

          • No inaccuracies were found by the referee, a referee, needs to be stressed, that refer to my website as “oppositionist”, and refused to give any weight to my arguments. Foolish me, in thinking that I could have gotten redress from a body formed by people from The Guardian, among others. As I stated then, the site of the PCC does not contain, to this day, one single reference about the term “oppositionist”. I don’t have to wonder where the jargon came from, do I Tucker? As you were perfectly informed by The Guardian of private proceedings, even before these were made public, as PCC’s Rebecca Hales wrote:

            “The PCC has been in touch with the Guardian and advised it that while
            our decisions can of course be made public, we generally regard the
            correspondence leading up to those decisions to be private between the
            parties. This enables people such as yourself to complain to us in good
            faith.”

            So The Guardian asked you to remove a blog post about it. Did you do it? It is not lost, however, that the only thing you could refute was that about the credibility of the PCC. Your threats and violence remain undisputed. As per The Guardian and the PCC, well, again, later developments speak volumes about their ‘integrity’.

  19. You have the right to vote for somebody else.
    But it is a universal principle that your vote is as good and valuable as your neighbor’s.
    Chavez will not be appeased if LL withdraws. Next candidate that will be decapitated is Capriles, then PP, then Ledezma, then MC. whom would we be left with? Precisely the one candidate that Chavez wants. Chavez even said his name publicly. Only God and Chavez, and may be the candidate, knows why.
    The dislike for LL shown by the posters blinds them to see the big picture: if LL withdraws, all will be lost. And not because the country might need or want him as President but because the country needs him as a fighter, as a contention wall to Chavez.
    Had LL not gone to the CIDH, most MUD candidates would be history by now.

  20. I used to come to this blog in order to get some of the mature thoughts I could never get from the rest of the opposition websites. I used to come here because I loved the lack of stupid rumours and conspiracy theories you never stop hearing from other *beloved* members of our side of the political spectrum. But today’s post looked like a prototypical article written by any of the crazy Chavez-hating columnists of Noticiero Digital… I thought initially I shouldn’t bother to comment, but then I felt I had a responsibility to do so.

    First of all, I’ll admit Leopoldo has an enormous ego. So what? Not everyone gets to be a presidential candidate, not everyone gets to be president, so if you really want to be president you must have a lot of ambition, as every high profile politician of every country has. But he didn’t leave PJ and UNT just for his ego but also for another important reason: the lack of internal democracy that characterizes those two parties. LL has always had a vision of a political party whose structure isn’t derived from Caracas, but from the bottom to the top. That’s why he fought for internal elections in PJ, that’s why he fought for internal elections in UNT and that’s way he got expelled from both parties.

    The reason why he is disqualified is that he is the only presidential candidate with a program, the only presidential candidate that has spoke about his projects to rebuild our economy, our infrastructure, to reduce poverty and violence, to build LaMejorVzla, and he is the only candidate who isn’t trying to emulate Chavez in order to win the election, who isn’t wearing his same jackets, who is being himself and might have a wide appeal on all classes of Venezuelans. He is the only candidate that could win a debate cara a cara against Chavez and we all know it.

    Finally, LL has said he will only run if he wins the MUD primaries; if he doesn’t, he won’t run. He is going to run for the primaries, he is going to win, he is going to face Chavez or any other chavista candidate and he is going to be the next president. And then if the TSJ says he can’t assume, we will force the institutions to recognize the people’s will, and we’ll have the people on our sides to make sure they do.

  21. I disagree. The government wants to keep on using inhabilitaciones to get strong opposition candidates out of their way. Even if Leopoldo Lopez fails to get the nomination for President I’m sure he’ll run for another office. In any case there’s hundred’s of inhabilitados for which this decision is relevant.

    I think the MUD should support Leopoldo and every single banned politician to run! it’s time for them to grow a pair and let a handful of inhabilitados get elected and put pressure on the Venezuelan State not to recognize the will of the people!

    • Which issue? I think we are arguing mostly about epithets and not about the consequences of LL’s decision or the twisted maneuvers of cabeza ‘e cochino and friends.

      LL’s will run in the primaries. So what? It’ll probably take away some support from HRC or PP, but that doesn’t mean that El Tigre will win the primary. If HRC or PP are worried about that, they can always make a deal with LL in exchange for his support. That’s how things work. It would be really naive to believe that LL is just going to quit after all the efforts he has made, and get nothing out of it. Cachicamo trabajando pa’ lapa? Yeah, right…

      Like moctavio said: let the guy run, if he loses, nevermind. LL has already said that he will support the winner no matter what. If he wins, it’s gonna be really hard for the MUD, but also for the regime and his lackeys. It’s up to the MUD to be prepared for what may come…

  22. Syd,

    It appears that you think that violence is automatically abnormal or bad, when in reality there are times when it is inevitable.You also seems to think that because someone feels violence necessary that this person has to be unhinged… yet this would mean that most people in this world are unhinged, and appear to put you in a category of a rarity.

    But let’s see:

    For someone who thinks supporting violence is a sign of an unhinged personality, you seem not to notice just how violent you yourself are towards Alek.This is called scapegoating.

    That being said there is also the factor that saying ‘violence is the only way to rid ourselves of Chavez’, is NOT the same as making a call for violence, it is merely expressing one way of viewing possibilities .

    The fact that you side with this Calvin character shows the depths to which you are willing to stoop in order to prove how correct you want others to view you.What is sad is that you are precisely the one who appears unhinged, because in these very paragraphs you show an unnecessary and irrational verbal violence, seemingly designed to show off your self assumed superior criteria at the expense of the opposition and you cannot seem to let it go, not even for the sake of peace.

    • Whatever mijito. Evidently your reading/comprehension skills are not strong. Never mind, there’s room for everyone. Now go run along, child. Honestly, this is becoming Guardería Chronicles.

  23. Syd,

    I think you had better hurry up and provide proof of Alex calling for violence against Livingstone which you have been consistently unwilling or unable to do .

    Otherwise your aggressive, and violent verbal onslaught against both Alek could be considered slander, at the very least immoral.

    Your energies might be better spent investigating and confronting some Chavista, but just make sure you have your facts right first 😉

  24. Syd, For the second time, you are quoting the wrong entry at thesaurus.com! The link you give provides the thesaurus entries for three –three– entries. Only the first entry is for “call for”. The “wish” and “wish for” synonyms do not fall under the entry for “call for”; they fall under the entry for “choose”.

    Syd, Besides my pointing that out, I also pointed out that there are differences in definitions between synonyms of words. It is not the same to “wish for” violence than it is to “demand” it, “ask for” it, “request” it, etc.. In the case of AB’s quote, the quote specifies which definition is being used for advocate, and it is *not* the definition for “urging for” it, it merely deduces violence as the only solution left. That is not a “call for” violence.

    Calvin, now you’re back to how you used to be, back then. It’s really simple: advocate, like most words, has several definitions, you are choosing the one that supports your arguement even when the very quote you provide points to the very definition that nullifies your argument.

    If all you’ve got is someone stating: “I have mentioned in many occasions that in my view that is the only solution left for dealing with Chavez”, then you do not have proof of someone “calling for” anything.

    So, both Syd and Calvin, if neither of you have a better quote in which AB specifically “calls for” violence, then I think force will be necessary to get either of you to apologize, let alone restitute, not that I’m urging for the use of force, nor wishing it, nor calling for it …

    • My apologies, there are not just three main entries at thesaurus.com, there are many more, they were just below a series of advertisements. More to my point, Syd, only the top main entry is the listing for “call for”. None of its synonyms includes “wish” or “wish for”. The quote: “I have mentioned in many occasions that in my view that is the only solution left for dealing with Chavez” simply does not “call for” violence.

    • Syd, Calvin,

      “Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the “aperture in the iris of the eye” is not synonymous with student. Similarly, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.” [Wikipedia]

      Apply the above to “advocate” when the context is a logical deduction, not a “call for”.

  25. exTorres,

    I have noticed that Syd has a very literal mind, which makes it almost impossible for her to understand what Alek was saying.

    Sometimes people suffer from an inability to understand things in context.To understand her we have to know how to understand how a literal mind works.

    She has repeatedly shown for sometime an inability to understand creative language,and the use of metaphor, and the shifting meaning of words in changing situations .In “trying ” to be excessively logical she misses the real meaning in the type of communication that is intended to reach the emotional centers of the brain.Actually she is very emotional but ironically in away that shows no conscious control .

    If she didn’t know the credentials of Kafka she would probably think ‘Metamorphosis ‘was about a cockroach.

Leave a Reply